Background: Low-molecular-weight heparin is the guideline-endorsed treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). While apixaban is approved for the treatment of acute VTE, limited data support its use in cancer patients. Objectives:The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included VTE recurrence and a composite of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Patients/Methods:Patients with cancer-associated VTE were randomly assigned to receive either apixaban 10 mg twice daily for seven days followed by 5 mg twice daily for six months or subcutaneous dalteparin (200 IU/kg for one month followed by 150 IU/kg once daily). Results:Of 300 patients randomized, 287 were included in the primary analysis.Metastatic disease was present in 66% of subjects; 74% were receiving concurrent chemotherapy. Major bleeding occurred in 0% of 145 patients receiving apixaban,

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulopathy but the optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy remains uncertain and may depend on COVID-19 severity. Objective: To compare outcomes in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 treated with standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing standard prophylactic dose versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/ or had laboratory evidence of coagulopathy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin or intermediate weightadjusted dose enoxaparin. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days.Secondary outcomes included arterial or venous thromboembolism and major bleeding.Results: A total of 176 patients (99 males and 77 females) underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.45; P = .31 by Chi-square test). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.37; P = .28). Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm. Conclusion:In hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19, standard prophylactic dose and intermediate dose enoxaparin did not differ significantly in preventing death or thrombosis at 30 days.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and mortality despite standard anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. There is equipoise regarding the optimal dose of anticoagulant intervention in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and consequently, immediate answers from high-quality randomized trials are needed. Methods: The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched on June 17, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing increased dose to standard dose anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Two authors independently screened the full records for eligibility and Study acronym or PI Trial ID Source registry Countries Date of registration Estimated study completion date COVID-HEP NCT04345848 ClinicalTrials.gov Switzerland

Background: Currently, low molecular weight heparin is the guideline endorsed treatment of patients with cancer associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). While apixaban is approved for the treatment of acute VTE, there are limited data supporting its use in cancer patients. Methods: Patients with cancer associated acute VTE were randomly assigned to receive either apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin (200 IU/kg for 1 month followed by 150 IU/kg once daily) for 6 months. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included VTE recurrence and a composite of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Results: Of the 300 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were included in the primary analysis. Of these, metastatic disease was present in 65.5% of subjects and 74% were receiving concurrent systemic cancer therapy. Colorectal, lung, pancreas, and breast cancers were the four most prevalent cancer types. Major bleeding occurred in 0 of the 142 patients (0%) in the apixaban group as compared with 3 of the 145 patients (2.1%) in the dalteparin group (p=0.9956). Recurrent VTE occurred in 5 patients (3.4%) in the apixaban group and 20 patients (14.1%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk -10.7 percentage points) with a Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.26, (95% CI, 0.09 - 0.80, p = 0.0182). Major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding were similar at 9% for both groups. There were no mortality differences comparing apixaban (15.9%) and dalteparin (10.6%) groups at 6 months (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 - 2.35). Monthly quality of life surveys favored apixaban therapy for many measures including: concern for excess bruising, stress, irritation, burden of delivery, and overall satisfaction with anticoagulant therapy (p<0.05). Monthly bruising questionnaire favored apixaban at each interval (p<0.002). Conclusions: Oral apixaban therapy was associated with very low rates of bleeding and significantly lower VTE recurrence with superior quality of life outcome measures compared to parenteral dalteparin in the treatment of cancer associated VTE. These data support the clinical utility of apixaban for the acute treatment of VTE in this patient population. Table. Table. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The prevalence, presenting clinical and pathological characteristics, and outcomes for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that is Epstein-Barr virus positive remain uncertain as does the impact of congenital or iatrogenic immunosuppression. Patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with available tissue arrays were identified from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource. Patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus or who had undergone a prior organ transplant were excluded. Epstein-Barr virus-associated ribonucleic acid testing was performed on all tissue arrays. A history of significant congenital or iatrogenic immunosuppression was determined for all patients. At enrollment, 16 of the 362 (4.4%) biopsies were positive for Epstein-Barr virus. Thirty-nine (10.8%) patients had a significant history of immunosuppression. Patients with Epstein-Barr-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma had no unique clinical characteristics but on pathology exhibited a higher frequency of CD30 positivity (25.0% versus 8.1%, respectively; P<0.01), and non-germinal-center subtype (62.5% versus 34.1%, respectively; P<0.01). No baseline clinical characteristics were associated with a history of immunosuppression. With a median follow up of 59 months, and after adjustment for International Prognostic Index, there was no association of Epstein-Barr virus positivity or immunosuppression with event-free survival at 24 months (odds ratio=0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.13–1.84 and odds ratio=0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.37–1.77) or overall survival (hazard ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.38–1.97 and hazard ratio=1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.74). In contrast to non-Western populations, our North American population had a low prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that did not convey an adverse prognosis. A history of immunosuppression, while known to be a risk factor for the development of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, did not affect subsequent prognosis.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

No abstract