Obese patients with atrial fibrillation are more efficiently protected from thrombosis under warfarin or xabans compared to non-obese patients; a systematic review and Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations about proper anticoagulation in obese patients, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, are not yet clearly defined. Obese patients were included in randomized controlled trials comparing new anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation or thromboembolism. METHODS: We performed a medline search entering proper criteria and finally 6 post-hoc analysis of RCTs, reporting outcome according to BMI, were included in this meta-analysis. Two major outcomes were considered end points in our meta-analysis; thrombosis, including ischemic cerebral events (transient or not) and venous thrombosis (DVD) /pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding, including major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. RESULTS: In the NOACs treated group, thrombosis occurred less frequently in obese vs non-obese patients; RR and 95 % CI 0,75 (0,58-0,97), p = 0,03, while low heterogeneity was observed (I2= 40 %). In the warfarin treated subgroup there was statistically significant difference with less thrombotic events occurring in the obese vs non-obese patients; RR and (95 % CI) 0,80 (0,66-0,98), p = 0,03, and heterogeneity was low (I2 = 24 %). This protective effect called the obesity paradox is limited to obese patients anticoagulated for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); RR (95 % CI) was 0,70 (0,58-0,85) p = 0,03 and I2 = 24 %. Bleeding events were similar under both NOACs and warfarin in obese vs non-obese analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients anticoagulated for NVAF with either standard dose of xabans or INR guided warfarin are more efficiently protected against thrombosis compared to non-obese patients.

How to improve RCHOP as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials.

RCHOP is the standard of care for patients with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) but failures occur in approximately 40% of them. We performed a meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing experimental regimens with RCHOP. We searched the database of PubMed with proper criteria, and data of efficacy (Progression Free Survival-PFS) in the ITT population were extracted and analyzed. Cross comparisons of RCTs were performed by using the CINEMA software. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%, CI) are reported. The literature search yielded 21 RCTs including 5785 patients in the RCHOP arm and 5648 patients in the experimental arm. Odds ratio (OR) for PFS in the total cohort was OR (95%, CI): 0.87 (0.76-0.99), p=0.02. Among different strategies to improve RCHOP, addition of a novel agent on RCHOP improved PFS. In total 1740 patients in the RCHOP arm were compared with 1755 in the RCHOP plus a novel agent arm, and the OR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.84 (0.71-0.97), p=0.02. Indirect comparisons of nine studies adding a novel agent on RCHOP does not give prominence to any agent. Subgroup analysis according to cell of origin was performed for non-GC DLBCL patients. In this subgroup, 1546 patients treated with RCHOP were compared with 1538 patients treated with experimental regimens. The OR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.86 (0.73-1.02), p=0.34. Overall survival data extracted from 18 studies showed no superiority of experimental regimens over RCHOP. Efficacy of RCHOP backbone is marginally improved when adding a novel anti-lymphoma agent.

Does the Simultaneous Introduction of Several Pharmaceuticals in the Post-Lenalidomide Era Translate to Better Outcomes in Relapse Refractory Multiple Myeloma? Findings from the Real-World Innovation in Multiple Myeloma (REAL IMM) Study.

Newer methodologies are needed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of a "generation" of pharmaceutical innovation versus the prior standard of care. This chart review study aimed to first evaluate the cumulative clinical benefits of pharmaceutical innovation in everyday relapse/refractory multiple myeloma before analyzing findings in the context of respective real-world outcomes from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. Study endpoints included the 52-week PFS rate in second and third line of therapy (LOT), mPFS-2 across the first and second LOT, the ORR, reasons for discontinuation, and the treatment duration per therapeutic algorithm. Data from 107 patients were collected. The median follow-up was 2.0 years. Of the subjects who met the selection criteria for the second LOT, 72.2% maintained the PFS at 52 weeks. In the third-line setting, the PFS rate at 52 weeks was 63.5%. The mPFS across the first and second, the second, and the third LOTs were 26, 17, and 15 months, respectively. The ORR was 76.1% in the second and 69.7% in the third LOT. After non-response or progression, the main reason for drug discontinuation was treatment intolerability. The second-line ORR and the 52-week PFS rate were similar to previous real-world findings from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. The cumulative mPFS across the second and third LOTs was higher than the respective mPFS across the first and second LOTs. Despite its limitations, the methodology and findings from this study may be used in future clinical and economic evaluations across all hematological malignancies.

Apixaban reduces the risk of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared to warfarin in patients with end stage renal disease; a systematic review and meta-analysis of ten studies.

Optimal anticoagulation in patients with end-stage renal disease ESRD is a matter of debate since these patients are not included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Evolving data are in favor of apixaban compared to warfarin. METHODS: We extracted data from 2 RCTs, 5 retrospective cohort studies and 3 large data-based studies. Both dosing regimens of apixaban, standard or reduced, were accepted. In most studies characteristics of patients were balanced between arms. Patients with either atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) were included. Quality of studies was graded as high and the funnel plot did not detect any publication bias. In total we analyzed the outcome of 6693 ESRD patients treated with apixaban and 19,836 treated with warfarin. Our analysis was performed by using the random effects model. We report our data as Risk Ratio (RR) and associated 95 % confidence interval values (95 %, CI). RESULTS: The RR (95 % CI) of major bleeding was 0.69 (0.57-0.84) p = 0.0002 in favor of apixaban vs warfarin with heterogeneity to be statistically significant I2 63% p = 0.004. Meta-regression analysis with year of publication as moderator shows in bubble plotting that studies published earlier than 2018 were plotted as outliers. The RR (95 % CI) of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) was 0.74 (0.64-0.87) p = 0.0002 favoring again apixaban. Standard apixaban dose over reduced dose is less hemorrhagic compared to warfarin. Overall, in our study the risk of thrombosis in both arms was statistically non-different. CONCLUSIONS: In our study we observed less hemorrhagic events with apixaban in ESRD patients compared to warfarin.

Reproductive Failure and Thrombophilia: Not Enough Evidence for a Tight Bond.

OBJECTIVES: The role of hereditary thrombophilia in reproductive failure (RF) is strongly debatable. In this retrospective single-center study, we analyzed pregnancy outcome in 175 women screened for thrombophilia after at least one event of RF. RESULTS: The prevalence of thrombophilia in our cohort was 33.4%. Pregnancy survival curves were not different according to severity (log-rank, p = 0.302) or type of thrombophilia (log-rank, p = 0.532). In total, 81.7% of 175 subsequent pregnancies were proceeded with LMWH. Concomitant use of ASA was prescribed in 75 pregnancies according to physician choice. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR) that succeeded in 152/175 next pregnancies (86.8%) and late obstetric complications (LOBC) which occurred in 17/175 next pregnancies (9.8%). In logistic regression analysis, neither the severity nor the type of thrombophilia was important for any pregnancy outcome (LBR or LOBC). Considering therapeutic interventions, the use of LMWH ± ASA was not related to LBR or LOBC. The only factor inversely related to LBR was age above the cutoff value of 35.5 years (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of thrombophilia is increased among women with RF, but the severity or type of thrombophilia is not related to pregnancy outcome.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: An update.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a perplexing painful syndrome of the extremities usually following a harmful event. It is distinguished in two types, mainly depending on the presence of nerve injury. Although its prevalence may vary depending on social and ethnic factors, middle-aged women seem to suffer most often and the upper limb is the most commonly affected extremity. Apart from pain, which is the dominating feature, the clinical picture unfolds across several domains: sensory, motor, autonomic and trophic. This syndrome develops in two phases, the acute (warm) phase, with the classic symptoms of inflammation, and the chronic (cold) phase, often characterized by trophic changes of the soft tissues and even bones. Although the syndrome has been studied for over two decades, no imaging or laboratory test has been established for the diagnosis and recently proposed diagnostic criteria have not yet been validated and are only occasionally applied. Its pathophysiology is still quite obscure, although the most likely mechanisms involve the classic and neurogenic paths of inflammation mediated by cytokines and neuropeptides, intertwined with changes of the autonomic and central nervous system, psychological mechanisms and, perhaps, autoimmunity. Although plenty of treatment modalities have been tried, none has been proven unequivocally efficacious. Apart from information and education, which should be offered to all patients, the most effective pharmacological treatments seem to be bisphosphonates, glucocorticoids and vasoactive mediators, while physical therapy and rehabilitation therapy also make part of the treatment.