ABSTRACT
The prevalence of amyloidosis has been increasing, driven by a combination of improved awareness, evolution of diagnostic pathways, and effective treatment options for both transthyretin and light chain amyloidosis. Due to the complexity of amyloidosis, centralised expert providers with experience in delineating the nuances of confirmatory diagnosis and management may be beneficial. There are many potential benefits of a centre of excellence designation for the treatment of amyloidosis including recognition of institutions that have been leading the way for the optimal treatment of this condition, establishing the expectations for any centre who is engaging in the treatment of amyloidosis and developing cooperative groups to allow more effective research in this disease space. Standardising the expectations and criteria for these centres is essential for ensuring the highest quality of clinical care and community education. In order to define what components are necessary for an effective centre of excellence for the treatment of amyloidosis, we prepared a survey in cooperation with a multidisciplinary panel of amyloidosis experts representing an international consortium. The purpose of this position statement is to identify the essential elements necessary for highly effective clinical care and to develop a general standard with which practices or institutions could be recognised as a centre of excellence.
Subject(s)
Amyloidosis , Humans , Amyloidosis/therapy , Amyloidosis/diagnosis , Cardiomyopathies/therapy , Cardiomyopathies/diagnosis , Cardiology/standards , Societies, Medical , Medical Oncology/standards , Cardio-OncologyABSTRACT
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after major gynecological cancer surgery might be an alternative to parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery were randomized at hospital discharge to receive rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a combination of symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death or asymptomatic VTE at day 30. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Two hundred and twenty-eight patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n = 114)or enoxaparin (n = 114). The trial was stopped due to a lower-than-expected event rate. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 3.51% of patients assigned to rivaroxaban and in 4.39% of patients assigned to enoxaparin (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.90; p = 0.7344). Patients assigned to rivaroxaban had no primary bleeding event, and 3 patients (2.63%) in the enoxaparin group had a major or CRNM bleeding event (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.007 to 2.73; P = 0.1963). In patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 30 days had similar rates of thrombotic and bleeding events compared to parenteral enoxaparin 40 mg daily. While the power is limited due to not reaching the intended sample size, our results support the hypothesis that DOACs might be an attractive alternative strategy to LMWH to prevent VTE in this high-risk population.
