Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Nationwide Comparative Cohort Study in France.

INTRODUCTION: Data from clinical trials indicate that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are noninferior and safer than conventional therapy (low-molecular-weight heparin followed by a vitamin K antagonist [VKA]) for treating venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE). This study compared the effectiveness and safety of DOACs and conventional therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This observational study used French national claims data of adult, treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with VTE (majority PE) who were hospitalized and treated for VTE with a DOAC (apixaban or rivaroxaban) or VKAs during 2013 to 2018. Patients with active cancer were excluded. After propensity score matching for each DOAC-VKA comparison, risks of bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause mortality were compared at 6 months. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios of the endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 58,137 patients were included (10,775 VKAs, 10,440 apixaban, 36,922 rivaroxaban). Propensity score-matched cohort sizes were 7,503 for apixaban and 9,179 for rivaroxaban. The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was significantly lower for apixaban than VKAs for bleeding requiring hospitalization (0.43 [0.32-0.59]), all-cause death (0.61 [0.51-0.74]), and first recurrent VTE (0.67 [0.52-0.85]). The hazard ratio was also significantly lower for rivaroxaban than VKAs for all-cause death (0.63 [0.53-0.74]) but not for bleeding requiring hospitalization (0.86 [0.69-1.07]) or first recurrent VTE (0.91 [0.74-1.13]). CONCLUSION: Apixaban was associated with superior safety and effectiveness than VKAs. All-cause mortality was lower in both DOACs than VKAs. Our results support recommendations to use DOACs over VKAs for the treatment of VTE.

Survival and treatment patterns of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in France - a cohort study using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS).

Over the past decade, several drugs have been approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This retrospective study, using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS), describes the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with RRMM treated in real-world clinical practice in France. Patients were adults, with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, who initiated second-line (2L) treatment approved for use in France between 2014 and 2018; this included bortezomib, carfilzomib, daratumumab, ixazomib, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide. Data were analyzed overall, by first-line (1L) autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) status and by lenalidomide treatment status at 2L. In total, 12987 patients with RRMM were included in the study (mean age 69.5 years); 27% received an ASCT at 1L, and 30% received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L. Overall, and among the ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups, most patients received a bortezomib-based regimen at 1L, whereas lenalidomide-based regimens were most common at 2L. Among patients who received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, this was most often a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen. Mortality rate was 26.1/100 person-years, and median (95% confidence interval) survival from 2L initiation was 32.4 (31.2-33.6) months. Survival differed by various factors, shorter survival was reported in the non-ASCT group, those receiving a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, older patients (≥ 70 years), and those with multiple comorbidities. This analysis provides insight into the real-world use of approved novel MM treatments and highlights an ongoing unmet need to improve outcomes, particularly for selected patient groups.

Comparative indicators for cancer network management in England: availability, characteristics and presentation.

BACKGROUND: In 2000, the national cancer plan for England created 34 cancer networks, new organisational structures to coordinate services across populations varying between a half and three million people. We investigated the availability of data sets reflecting measures of structure, process and outcome that could be used to support network management. METHODS: We investigated the properties of national data sets relating to four common cancers - breast, colorectal, lung and prostate. We reviewed the availability and completeness of these data sets, identified leading items within each set and put them into tables of the 34 cancer networks. We also investigated methods of presentation. RESULTS: The Acute Hospitals Portfolio and the Cancer Standards Peer Review recorded structural characteristics at hospital and cancer service level. Process measures included Hospital Episode Statistics, recording admissions, and Hospital Waiting-List data. Patient outcome measures included the National Survey of Patient Satisfaction for cancer, and cancer survival, drawn from cancer registration. Data were drawn together to provide an exemplar indicator set a single network, and methods of graphical presentation were considered. CONCLUSION: While not as yet used together in practice, comparative indicators are available within the National Health Service in England for use in performance assessment by cancer networks.