Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

“…Bleeding events were higher on anticoagulation in both trials, but only reached statistical significance in the AVERT trial (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.95) The American Society of Hematology analysis of these two studies, combined with a phase 2 study,55 found probable differences in mortality, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding, although only pulmonary embolism (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.98) achieved statistical significance. These findings are consistent with other available meta-analyses 525657…”

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

“…Bleeding events were higher on anticoagulation in both trials, but only reached statistical significance in the AVERT trial (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.95) The American Society of Hematology analysis of these two studies, combined with a phase 2 study,55 found probable differences in mortality, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding, although only pulmonary embolism (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.98) achieved statistical significance. These findings are consistent with other available meta-analyses 525657…”

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Notably, the NNT of 35 to prevent a VTE when pooling studies with lower risk of bias and the NNH of 114 for the occurrence of a major bleeding event in our study were similar to those in studies on VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [ 15 , 39 , 40 ]. Current gastroenterological guidelines recommend prophylaxis due to the higher rates of VTEs in IBD patients and their associated complications [ 2 , 4 ] and are most likely based on expert opinions and vast clinical experience.…”

Prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, and transplantation: Lessons from the substudy of IFM/DFCI 2009 cohort

“…The size of the IFM2009 cohort versus the two randomized studies (700 vs. 342 and 445 patients) could explain, at least in part, the significant effect of LMWH observed in our study 8,9,18 . Our VTE risk is quite similar compared to primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, with a 4.4% reported incidence of VTE with LMWH versus 7.1% with no thromboprophylaxis 37 . So, heparin prophylaxis failure is similar in nMM and other patients with cancer.…”

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

“…Bleeding events were higher on anticoagulation in both trials, but only reached statistical significance in the AVERT trial (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.95) The American Society of Hematology analysis of these two studies, combined with a phase 2 study,55 found probable differences in mortality, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding, although only pulmonary embolism (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.98) achieved statistical significance. These findings are consistent with other available meta-analyses 525657…”

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Notably, the NNT of 35 to prevent a VTE when pooling studies with lower risk of bias and the NNH of 114 for the occurrence of a major bleeding event in our study were similar to those in studies on VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [ 15 , 39 , 40 ]. Current gastroenterological guidelines recommend prophylaxis due to the higher rates of VTEs in IBD patients and their associated complications [ 2 , 4 ] and are most likely based on expert opinions and vast clinical experience.…”

Prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, and transplantation: Lessons from the substudy of IFM/DFCI 2009 cohort

“…The size of the IFM2009 cohort versus the two randomized studies (700 vs. 342 and 445 patients) could explain, at least in part, the significant effect of LMWH observed in our study 8,9,18 . Our VTE risk is quite similar compared to primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, with a 4.4% reported incidence of VTE with LMWH versus 7.1% with no thromboprophylaxis 37 . So, heparin prophylaxis failure is similar in nMM and other patients with cancer.…”

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

“…Bleeding events were higher on anticoagulation in both trials, but only reached statistical significance in the AVERT trial (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.95) The American Society of Hematology analysis of these two studies, combined with a phase 2 study,55 found probable differences in mortality, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding, although only pulmonary embolism (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.98) achieved statistical significance. These findings are consistent with other available meta-analyses 525657…”

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Notably, the NNT of 35 to prevent a VTE when pooling studies with lower risk of bias and the NNH of 114 for the occurrence of a major bleeding event in our study were similar to those in studies on VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [ 15 , 39 , 40 ]. Current gastroenterological guidelines recommend prophylaxis due to the higher rates of VTEs in IBD patients and their associated complications [ 2 , 4 ] and are most likely based on expert opinions and vast clinical experience.…”

Prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, and transplantation: Lessons from the substudy of IFM/DFCI 2009 cohort

“…The size of the IFM2009 cohort versus the two randomized studies (700 vs. 342 and 445 patients) could explain, at least in part, the significant effect of LMWH observed in our study 8,9,18 . Our VTE risk is quite similar compared to primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, with a 4.4% reported incidence of VTE with LMWH versus 7.1% with no thromboprophylaxis 37 . So, heparin prophylaxis failure is similar in nMM and other patients with cancer.…”