Tranexamic acid for bleeding: Much more than a treatment for postpartum hemorrhage.

The evidence that early tranexamic acid treatment reduces postpartum hemorrhage deaths has major implications for obstetrical care worldwide. Tranexamic acid may also have a role in the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage, but more evidence is needed on the balance of risks and benefits. Most deaths from postpartum hemorrhage are in low- and middle-income countries where tranexamic acid treatment is often unavailable. Several maternal health organizations including the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Concept Foundation, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Unitaid are working to increase access. However, a wider view of the evidence on tranexamic acid and bleeding shows that it can improve maternal health in many other ways. An appreciation of these other health benefits could facilitate efforts to increase access. By reducing heavy menstrual bleeding, tranexamic acid could reduce the prevalence of maternal anemia, a common and important risk factor for postpartum hemorrhage and other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Further clinical trials of tranexamic acid for the treatment of menstrual bleeding are needed. By reducing surgical bleeding and the need for blood transfusion, tranexamic acid would increase the availability of blood in countries where there is blood shortage so that more blood is available for use in life-threatening bleeding including postpartum hemorrhage. In countries where there is no blood shortage, tranexamic acid use would reduce healthcare costs and prevent transfusion-transmitted infections and reactions. Trauma affects women and men, and violence is a leading cause of death in pregnancy. Increased use of tranexamic acid in trauma would significantly reduce trauma deaths. Efforts to increase the availability and use of tranexamic acid for obstetrical hemorrhage should acknowledge its other health benefits and aim to increase its use across health services more generally.

A high-dose 24-hour tranexamic acid infusion for the treatment of significant gastrointestinal bleeding: HALT-IT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. OBJECTIVE: The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. SETTING: The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. INTERVENTION: Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. RESULTS: A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. FUTURE WORK: These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. LIMITATIONS: Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (bleeding from the gut) is a common emergency and an important cause of death and illness worldwide. In the UK, more than 65,000 people each year are admitted to hospital because of acute gastrointestinal bleeding; approximately 10% of them die within 30 days. Gastrointestinal bleeding is also common in low- and middle-income countries. The care of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding has improved in recent decades, but death rates remain high. Gastrointestinal bleeding is often caused by stomach ulcers, but also by liver damage owing to alcohol or hepatitis C infection. An effective and affordable treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding could save many lives and may reduce the need for blood transfusions, which is important because blood is a scarce resource in some health-care settings. Tranexamic acid, also known as TXA, is a cheap drug that reduces bleeding in other conditions. It helps blood to clot, thereby decreasing bleeding. A trial in bleeding accident victims found that tranexamic acid reduced the chances of bleeding to death, without any increase in side effects. We wanted to find out if tranexamic acid safely improves outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly to prevent deaths. To investigate this, the HALT-IT (Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid ­ Intestinal system) trial studied 12,009 patients with significant gastrointestinal bleeding in 164 hospitals across 15 countries. Half of the patients received tranexamic acid and the other half received a dummy drug, called a placebo. The treatments were assigned randomly and given in addition to all other treatments needed. Neither the patient nor the doctor knew which treatment a patient received. The trial showed that tranexamic acid did not reduce deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. Instead, tranexamic acid was linked to an increased risk of complications, including unwanted blood clots (such as deep-vein thrombosis) and seizures. The economic analysis indicated that giving tranexamic acid to patients with gastrointestinal bleeding does not represent value for money for the NHS.

Tranexamic acid for acute gastrointestinal bleeding (the HALT-IT trial): statistical analysis plan for an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Bleeding can occur from the upper or lower GI tract, with upper GI bleeding accounting for most cases. The main causes include peptic ulcer/erosive mucosal disease, oesophageal varices and malignancy. The case fatality rate is around 10% for upper GI bleeding and 3% for lower GI bleeding. Rebleeding affects 5-40% of patients and is associated with a four-fold increased risk of death. Tranexamic acid (TXA) decreases bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in surgery and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. It reduces bleeding by inhibiting the breakdown of fibrin clots by plasmin. Due to the methodological weaknesses and small size of the existing trials, the effectiveness and safety of TXA in GI bleeding is uncertain. The Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid - Intestinal system (HALT-IT) trial aims to provide reliable evidence about the effects of TXA in acute upper and lower GI bleeding. METHODS: The HALT-IT trial is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid in 12,000 adults (increased from 8000) with acute upper or lower GI bleeding. Eligible patients are randomly allocated to receive TXA (1-g loading dose followed by 3-g maintenance dose over 24 h) or matching placebo. The main analysis will compare those randomised to TXA with those randomised to placebo on an intention-to-treat basis, presenting the results as effect estimates (relative risks) and confidence intervals. The primary outcome is death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation and secondary outcomes are: rebleeding; all-cause and cause-specific mortality; thromboembolic events; complications; endoscopic, radiological and surgical interventions; blood transfusion requirements; disability (defined by a measure of patient's self-care capacity); and number of days spent in intensive care or high-dependency units. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will consider time to treatment, location of bleeding, cause of bleed and clinical Rockall score. DISCUSSION: We present the statistical analysis of the HALT-IT trial. This plan was published before the treatment allocation was unblinded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN11225767. Registered on 3 July 2012; Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT01658124. Registered on 26 July 2012.

Outcome measures in clinical trials of treatments for acute severe haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. MAIN BODY: We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If non-bleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments.

Tranexamic acid for significant traumatic brain injury (The CRASH-3 trial): Statistical analysis plan for an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Worldwide, traumatic brain injury (TBI) kills or hospitalises over 10 million people each year. Early intracranial bleeding is common after TBI, increasing the risk of death and disability. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and death due to bleeding in trauma patients with extra-cranial injury. Early administration of tranexamic acid in TBI patients might limit intracranial bleeding, reducing death and disability. The CRASH-3 trial aims to provide evidence on the effect of tranexamic acid on death and disability in TBI patients. We will randomly allocate about 13,000 TBI patients (approximately 10,000 within 3 hours of injury) to an intravenous infusion of tranexamic acid or matching placebo in addition to usual care. This paper presents a protocol update (version 2.1) and statistical analysis plan for the CRASH-3 trial. Results: The primary outcome is head injury death in hospital within 28 days of injury for patients treated within 3 hours of injury (deaths in patients treated after 3 hours will also be reported). Because there are reasons to expect that tranexamic acid will be most effective in patients treated immediately after injury and less effective with increasing delay, the effect in patients treated within one hour of injury is of particular interest. Secondary outcomes are all-cause and cause-specific mortality, vascular occlusive events, disability based on the Disability Rating Scale and measures suggested by patient representatives, seizures, neurosurgical intervention, neurosurgical blood loss, days in intensive care and adverse events. Sub-group analyses will examine the effect of tranexamic acid on head injury death stratified by time to treatment, severity of TBI and baseline risk. Conclusion: The CRASH-3 trial will provide reliable evidence of the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid in patients with acute TBI. Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry ( ISRCTN15088122) 19/07/2011, and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01402882) 25/07/2011.

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries. SUBJECTS: Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up. METHODS: The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost-utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance. RESULTS: In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain. CONCLUSIONS: A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence. METHODS: We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649. FINDINGS: 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6-11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31-0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06-1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29-0·84). INTERPRETATION: Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

Relationship between serum müllerian-inhibiting substance and other reproductive hormones in untreated women with polycystic ovary syndrome and normal women.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship of serum müllerian-inhibiting substance (MIS), E(2), free-T, LH, and FSH in untreated women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and in women with normal menstrual cycles. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: University Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Surgery. PATIENT(S): Twenty-seven women with PCOS and 20 women with normal menstrual cycles. INTERVENTION(S): Serum was collected from women with PCOS and from normal women during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, stored frozen until assayed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Serum levels of MIS, E(2), free-T, TSH, LH, and FSH were measured. RESULT(S): Serum müllerian-inhibiting substance levels in PCOS patients were significantly higher compared with normal women (+/- SE; 5.3 +/- 0.7 and 1.4 +/- 0.2 ng/mL, respectively). An inverse correlation (r = -0.5965) was found between serum levels of MIS and E(2) in PCOS women, but not in normal women. Women with PCOS had higher serum LH levels than those of normal women (15.2 +/- 1.2 and 5.0 +/- 0.7 mIU/mL). CONCLUSION: In this study, women with PCOS have significantly higher serum MIS levels than normal women. The inverse relationship between müllerian-inhibiting substance and E(2) levels suggests that MIS may modulate ovarian E(2) synthesis and have a role in the disordered folliculogenesis characteristic of PCOS.