Literature DB >> 30786186

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

Alok A Khorana1, Gerald A Soff1, Ajay K Kakkar1, Saroj Vadhan-Raj1, Hanno Riess1, Ted Wun1, Michael B Streiff1, David A Garcia1, Howard A Liebman1, Chandra P Belani1, Eileen M O'Reilly1, Jai N Patel1, Habte A Yimer1, Peter Wildgoose1, Paul Burton1, Ujjwala Vijapurkar1, Simrati Kaul1, John Eikelboom1, Robert McBane1, Kenneth A Bauer1, Nicole M Kuderer1, Gary H Lyman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain.
METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of ≥2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding.
RESULTS: Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49).
CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30786186     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   176.079


  154 in total

Review 1.  Venous Thromboembolism Treatment and Prevention in Cancer Patients: Can We Use Pills Yet?

Authors:  Tulsi Patel; David A Iglesias
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2020-04-23

2.  SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019).

Authors:  A J Muñoz Martín; E Gallardo Díaz; I García Escobar; R Macías Montero; V Martínez-Marín; V Pachón Olmos; P Pérez Segura; T Quintanar Verdúguez; M Salgado Fernández
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 3.  Vascular Toxicity in Patients with Cancer: Is There a Recipe to Clarify Treatment? CME.

Authors:  Jose Alvarez-Cardona; Joshua Mitchell; Daniel Lenihan
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2019 Oct-Dec

Review 4.  Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Authors:  Ramya C Mosarla; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Arman Qamar; Javid Moslehi; Gregory Piazza; Robert P Giugliano
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Correspondence to: Management of Venous Thromboembolisms: Part II. The Consensus for Pulmonary Embolism and Updates.

Authors:  Yu-Yun Shao; Hung-Ju Lin
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.672

Review 6.  Managing the competing risks of thrombosis, bleeding, and anticoagulation in patients with malignancy.

Authors:  Hanny Al-Samkari; Jean M Connors
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2019-11-26

Review 7.  Systems-based hematology: highlighting successes and next steps.

Authors:  Jori E May; Patrick C Irelan; Kailee Boedeker; Emily Cahill; Steven Fein; David A Garcia; Lisa K Hicks; Janice Lawson; Ming Y Lim; Colleen T Morton; Anita Rajasekhar; Satish Shanbhag; Marc S Zumberg; Robert M Plovnick; Nathan T Connell
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-09-22

8.  Predicting venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: development and validation of the IMPEDE VTE score.

Authors:  Kristen M Sanfilippo; Suhong Luo; Tzu-Fei Wang; Mark Fiala; Martin Schoen; Tanya M Wildes; Joseph Mikhael; Nicole M Kuderer; David C Calverley; Jesse Keller; Theodore Thomas; Kenneth R Carson; Brian F Gage
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 10.047

9.  External Validation of a Venous Thromboembolic Risk Score for Cancer Outpatients with Solid Tumors: The COMPASS-CAT Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model.

Authors:  Alex C Spyropoulos; Joanna B Eldredge; Lalitha N Anand; Meng Zhang; Michael Qiu; Soheila Nourabadi; David J Rosenberg
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-02-04

10.  Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with solid cancers in Japan: retrospective study of 2735 patients.

Authors:  Taku Nose; Yoshinori Imamura; Shinya Ohata; Shiro Kimbara; Yoshiharu Miyata; Yasuko Hyogo; Yoshimi Fujishima; Yohei Funakoshi; Masanori Toyoda; Naomi Kiyota; Hironobu Minami
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2021-06-06       Impact factor: 2.490

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.