<h2>Key Takeaway</h2>
<p>GARFIELD-VTE study results showed that patients with VTE and concomitant anemia had a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes vs those without anemia.</p>

<p>Baseline anemia is a prominent predictor of the risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality but does not influence the risk of recurrent VTE.*</p>

<p>Patients with anemia were more likely to receive parenteral anticoagulants and VKAs and less likely to receive DOACs.<sup>†</sup></p>

<p>GARFIELD-VTE registry study analyzed real-world population of VTE patients, thus allowing an understanding of current outcomes and treatment protocols in a clinical setting.</p>

<p>This study demonstrated the need for appropriate therapeutic management strategies to reduce the risk of major bleeding and mortality for patients with VTE and concomitant anemia.</p>

<h2>Study Design</h2>
<p>GARFIELD-VTE: Global, Prospective, Non-interventional Registry (10,685 Adult Patients With Vte [415 Sites Across 28 Countries Worldwide])</p>

<h3>Key Inclusion Criteria</h3>
<p>Objective diagnosis of VTE within ± 30 days of entry into the registry</p>

<h3>Key Exclusion Criteria</h3>
<p>Long-term follow-up was not planned; Hb values were not measured; or Hb values were measured outside the 30-day window of entry into the registry</p>

<p><strong>Primary clinical outcomes:</strong>&nbsp;All-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding<sup>‡</sup>&nbsp;in patients with and without anemia over 24-months from VTE diagnosis</p>
<p><strong>Secondary clinical outcomes:</strong>&nbsp;Non-major bleeding<sup>§</sup>, MI/ACS, non-hemorrhagic stroke/TIA, and cancer</p>

<h2>Key Results</h2>
<p><strong>72.1 %</strong>&nbsp;patients&nbsp;<strong>(7,698/10,679)</strong>&nbsp;diagnosed with VTE were eligible for analysis</p>
<ul>
 <li>Patients with Anemia: n =&nbsp;<strong>2,771</strong>
  <ul>
   <li>(median age = 62.6 years; DVT events = 61.1%; PE ± DVT events = 38.9%)</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>Patients without Anemia: n =&nbsp;<strong>4,927</strong>
  <ul>
   <li>(median age = 58.9 years; DVT events = 55.9%; PE ± DVT events = 44.0%)</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h3>VTE Risk Factors (Patients with vs without Anemia):</h3>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>Active cancer:<br><strong>20.1%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>5.6%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>History of cancer:<br><strong>22.4%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>9.2%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>CHF:&nbsp;<strong>4.2</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>2.5%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Chronic immobilization:<br><strong>8.2%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>4.0%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Renal insufficiency:<br><strong>6.6%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>2.4%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Hospitalization:<br><strong>22.0%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>6.8%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Surgery:&nbsp;<strong>19.2%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>8.2%</strong></p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Previous VTE:<br><strong>10.0%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>17.9%</strong></p></li>
</ul>

<h3>Primary Clinical Outcomes (Patients with vs without Anemia)<sup>¶</sup>:</h3>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>All-cause mortality: HR =&nbsp;<strong>1.84</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 1.56–2.18; P &lt;0.0001)</p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Major bleeding: HR =&nbsp;<strong>2.83</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 2.14–3.75; P &lt;0.0001)</p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Recurrent VTE: HR =&nbsp;<strong>0.96</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 0.79–1.16; P = 0.6440)</p></li>
</ul>

<h3>Secondary Clinical Outcomes (Patients with vs without Anemia)<sup>¶</sup>:</h3>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>Any bleeds: HR =&nbsp;<strong>1.41</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 1.23–1.62; P &lt;0.0001)</p></li>
 <li>
  <p>MI/ACS: HR =&nbsp;<strong>2.01</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 1.21–3.34; P &lt;0.0092)</p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Stroke/TIA: HR =&nbsp;<strong>1.56</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 1.01–2.41; P = 0.0489)</p></li>
 <li>
  <p>Cancer: HR =&nbsp;<strong>1.07</strong><br>
    (95% CI: 0.83–1.38; P = 0.6150)</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Patients who remained on anticoagulant treatment at 24-months (with vs without anemia):&nbsp;<strong>40.0%</strong>&nbsp;vs&nbsp;<strong>51.2%</strong></p>

<h2>Key Limitations</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Data collection was non-randomized</li>
 <li>Intention-to-treat concept was used; however, this approach did not consider treatment duration/discontinuation or fluctuating Hb values after initial assessment at baseline</li>
 <li>Hb values were only available for 7,698/10,679 patients</li>
</ul>
<p>* Patients with severe anemia vs those with mild/moderate anemia had higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.42 [95% CI: 1.17–1.72]; P = 0.0004) and major bleeding (HR = 1.84 [95% CI: 1.33–2.55]; P = 0.0003).<br><sup>†</sup>&nbsp;Patients with vs without anemia (at baseline): Parenteral therapy alone = 26.6% vs 11.7%; VKA alone = 5.7% vs 5.0%; VKA + parenteral therapy = 25.6% vs 28.1%; DOACs alone = 24.5% vs 32.8%; DOAC + parenteral therapy = 14.0% vs 20.7%.<br><sup>‡</sup>Clinically overt bleeding associated with a critical site, a fall in Hb of 2 g/dL, transfusion of 2 or more units of red blood cells, hemorrhagic stroke, or fatal outcome.<br><sup>§</sup>Any bleeding that did not meet the major bleeding criteria.<br><sup>¶</sup>At 24 months, after adjustment for cancer status, age, ethnicity, and BMI (adjusted HR for mortality with 95% CIs for 24-month outcomes after VTE diagnosis between patients with anemia and or with no-anemia [reference group]).</p>

Abbreviations

Reference

Impact of anemia on long-term clinical outcomes in venous thromboembolism: Findings from GARFIELD-VTE registry

THROMBOSIS

CARDIOLOGY

<h2>Compression stockings in addition to low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent venous thromboembolism in elective surgical inpatients in need of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis: the GAPS trial</h2>
<p>In the GAPS non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) in elective surgical inpatients at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), administration of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone was non-inferior to a combination of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis plus graduated compression stockings (GCS).</p>
<ul>
</ul>

<h2>Main Takeaway</h2>
<ul>
 <li>In elective surgical inpatients with moderate or high risk of VTE requiring pharmacological thromboprophylaxis; low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)-alone was non-inferior to LMWH + GCS in the overall population. 
  <ul>
   <li>Non-inferiority of LMWH was sustained in the subgroup analyses based on age (&lt;65 or ≥65 years) and baseline VTE risk (moderate or high risk).</li>
   <li>Primary outcome event (VTE) occurred in 1.7% vs 1.4% of the patients in LMWH group vs LMWH + GCS group (risk difference = 0.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}: –0.65% to 1.26%]; P &lt; 0.001).</li>
   <li>For the overall trial population, there was no evidence of a difference in the secondary outcomes (quality of life or adverse events) between the two treatment groups (LMWH group vs LMWH + GCS group).</li>
   <li>Based on the study findings GCS may be unnecessary for most elective surgical patients</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h2>Why This Matters</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Surgical patients are at an increased risk of VTE. Although, the guidelines recommended both pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and mechanical thromboprophylaxis in surgical patients with moderate or high risk of VTE, use of GCS was found to be associated with undesirable effects in the real-world</li>
</ul>

<h2>Study Design</h2>
<ul>
 <li>The GAPS trial was a pragmatic, prospective, non-inferiority RCT (randomization [1:1]: LMWH [intervention] or LMWH + GCS [standard care]; trial period: May 2016 to January 31, 2019; N =1,905; sites: seven NHS hospitals in England).</li>
 <li>Key inclusion criteria: Elective surgical inpatients aged ≥18 years with moderate or high risk of VTE</li>
 <li>Key exclusion criteria: Contraindications to LMWH; contraindications to GCS; thrombophilia or thrombogenic disorder; need for therapeutic anticoagulation; previous VTE; and pregnancy</li>
 <li>Primary endpoint: Symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE up to 90 days after surgery</li>
 <li>Secondary endpoints: Quality of life over 90 days; compliance with LMWH and GCS; and overall mortality</li>
</ul>

<h2>Key Results</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Of the 1,905 patients randomized, 17 were excluded post randomization (overall population: N = 1,888 [LMWH {N = 948} group vs LMWH + GCS group {N = 940}: mean age = 59.3 vs 58.1 years; females = 63.4% vs 63.2%]). 
  <ul>
   <li>Overall, 1,858 patients had surgery (LMWH group vs LMWH + GCS group: 937 vs 921 patients) 
    <ul>
     <li>Treatment received (LMWH group vs LMWH + GCS group): (1) LMWH + GCS = 37 vs 750 patients; (2) LMWH alone = 758 vs 21 patients; (3) GCS alone = 18 vs 142 patients; and (4) Neither LMWH nor GCS = 124 vs 8 patients</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>Primary outcome (intention-to-treat analysis): VTE event occurred in 1.7% (16/937) vs 1.4% (13/921) of the patients in LMWH group vs LMWH + GCS group (risk difference = 0.3% [95% CI: –0.65% to 1.26%]; P &lt; 0.001 [non-inferiority of LMWH-alone was shown]) 
  <ul>
   <li>Non-inferiority of LMWH was sustained in the subgroup analyses based on age (&lt;65 or ≥65 years) and baseline VTE risk (moderate or high risk).</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>Secondary outcomes (overall population [LMWH group {N = 948} vs LMWH + GCS group {N = 940}]): 
  <ul>
   <li>EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, n; mean: 774; 0.856 vs 743; 0.843 (mean difference = 0.011 [95% CI: –0.009 to 0.031; P = 0.272])</li>
   <li>EuroQol-visual analogue scale, n; mean: 773; 80.2 vs 743; 80.7 (mean difference = –0.29 [95% CI: –1.94 to 1.37; P = 0.732])</li>
   <li>Compliance with GCS (stockings worn for 75% of the total re-admission time), n (%): 37 (4.0) vs 750 (81.4)</li>
   <li>Compliance with LMWH (received all prescribed LMWH doses), n (%): 768 (82.0) vs 755 (82.0)</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>Complications, overall mortality, and serious adverse events (SAEs) (overall population [LMWH {N = 779} vs LMWH + GCS {N = 787} vs GCS {N = 160}vs neither {N = 132}]): 
  <ul>
   <li>GCS-related complications, n (%): 2 (0.3) vs 50 (6.4) vs 5 (3.1) vs 1 (0.8 [wore stockings for &lt;1 hour, classified as not wearing stockings])</li>
   <li>Adverse reactions to LMWH, n (%): 6 (0.8) vs 2 (0.3) vs 0 (0) vs 0 (0) 
    <ul>
     <li>Overall mortality, n (%): 2 (0.3) vs 0 (0) vs 0 (0) vs 1 (0.8)</li>
    </ul></li>
   <li>Number of patients with a SAE: 92 (11.8) vs 103 (13.1) vs 5 (3.1) vs 10 (7.6) 
    <ul>
     <li>Total number of SAEs: 110 vs 112 vs 5 vs 12</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h2>Limitations</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Few patients (15%) missed the duplex ultrasound scan, which could have helped detect further asymptomatic DVT.</li>
 <li>The event rate might have been potentially overestimated.</li>
 <li>Patients aged ≥65 years with moderate risk of VTE were underrepresented.</li>
</ul>

GAPS trial: Low-dose LMWH and GCS in in elective surgical inpatients at moderate or high risk VTE

<h2>Enoxaparin monotherapy more effective and economical than unfractionated heparin monotherapy among inpatients with NSTEMI</h2>
<p>Findings from analysis of real-world data from more than 1 million patients from 859 US hospitals.</p>
<h2>Main Takeaway</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Enoxaparin was associated with a significantly lower risk for ischaemic complications and death than unfractionated heparin (UFH) among inpatients with myocardial infarction (MI) with no ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) but not in patients with unstable angina (UA) and STEMI.</li>
 <li>Enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of major bleeding and costs among all 3 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohorts.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Why This Matters</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Despite proven effectiveness, enoxaparin monotherapy is much less used than UFH monotherapy across all spectrums of ACS.</li>
 <li>Additional research is needed to better understand the methods for improving the upstream selection of anticoagulants to optimise clinical outcomes.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Study Design</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Study evaluated 1,048,053 patients (age, ≥18 years) with an inpatient admission for initial episode of ACS between 2010 and 2016 across 859 US hospitals.</li>
 <li>Outcomes evaluated: all-cause in-hospital mortality, non-fatal MI, recurrent angina and composite ischaemic complications during any hospital visit within 30 days post-index discharge.</li>
 <li>Secondary outcomes: prevalence of anticoagulant use, enoxaparinand UFH-related treatment costs, total length of stay and risk for 30-day readmission.</li>
 <li>Funding: Sanofi Inc.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Key Results</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Overall, 20.9%, 55.6% and 23.5% patients were diagnosed with UA, NSTEMI and STEMI, respectively.</li>
 <li>Among the overall population, 11.4% and 47.4% received enoxaparin and UFH monotherapy, respectively.</li>
 <li>Among patients with NSTEMI, enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with lower odds of: 
  <ul>
   <li>MI: adjusted OR (aOR), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99);</li>
   <li>recurrent angina: aOR, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98);</li>
   <li>in-hospital mortality: aOR, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.95); and</li>
   <li>composite ischaemic complications: aOR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98)</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>Among patients with UA, odds of having composite ischaemic complications (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.19) and recurrent angina (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28) were slightly higher in enoxaparin vs UFH group, whereas MI and all-cause in-hospital mortality were comparable.</li>
 <li>Among patients with STEMI, odds of all mentioned outcomes were lower in enoxaparin group; however, results were not statistically significant.</li>
 <li>Enoxaparin was associated with lower odds of major bleeding in all 3 cohorts: 
  <ul>
   <li>UA: aOR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.91);</li>
   <li>NSTEMI: aOR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72); and</li>
   <li>STEMI: aOR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.83)</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>The estimated overall cost savings during index admission until 30 days post-index discharge for enoxaparin over UFH cohort were $2972/patient, $2475/patient and $3050/patient for UA, NSTEMI and STEMI cohorts, respectively.</li>
 <li>30-day all-cause readmission was lower in enoxaparin vs UFH group for NSTEMI (adjusted mean [aM], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98) and STEMI cohorts (aM, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) but higher for UA cohort (aM, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22).</li>
 <li>The total length of hospital stay during the 30-day follow-up was not statistically different in any of the 3 cohorts.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Limitations</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Limitations of typical retrospective analysis using a hospital administrative database should be considered.</li>
 <li>Key outcome variables might have been underestimated.</li>
 <li>Factors that could influence anticoagulant selection were not captured.</li>
</ul>

Enoxaparin monotherapy vs UFH monotherapy among inpatients with NSTEMI

<h2>Enoxaparin in VTE Prophylaxis in Cancer Surgery</h2>
<p>Landmark trials of enoxaparin in cancer surgery</p>
<h2>Enoxacan Study Group (Enoxaparin and cancer)</h2>
<p>European, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study¹</p>
<h2>Study Design¹</h2>

<h2>Treatment Groups¹</h2>
<ul>
 <li><strong>Enoxaparin</strong>, administered&nbsp;<strong>40 mg subcutaneously</strong>&nbsp;[SC] (either in the lateral abdominal wall or in the thigh)&nbsp;<strong>qd</strong>&nbsp;with the first dose given 2 hours prior to surgery and continuing for&nbsp;<strong>10±2 days&nbsp;</strong>in&nbsp;<strong>555 patients.</strong>&nbsp;was compared to</li>
 <li><strong>UFH 5,000 IU SC every 8 hours (q8h) in 560 patients.</strong></li>
</ul>
<h2>Primary Endpoint¹</h2>
<ul>
 <li>The primary endpoint was VTE determined by bilateral ascending venography within 24 hours after the last injection of drug.</li>
 <li>Efficacy was determined in all-treated patients as well as in evaluable patients, who met the protocol entry criteria.</li>
 <li>Of the 1,115 all-treated patients,&nbsp;<strong>631 (56.6%) were evaluable (UFH; n=319, enoxaparin; n=312).</strong></li>
</ul>
<h2>Results: Efficacy¹</h2>
<p>The total incidence of DVT and PE in the evaluable patients</p>

<p>* In the evaluable-patients, PE was diagnosed in 2 patients in the UFHtreated group versus none in the enoxaparin treated group</p>
<h2>Results: Safety¹</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Two deaths occurred in the enoxaparin-treated group due to thromboembolic origin.</li>
 <li>Major bleeding* was seen in&nbsp;4.1%&nbsp;(23/555) of the enoxaparin-treated patients and in&nbsp;2.9%&nbsp;(16/560) of the UFH-treated patients.</li>
</ul>
<p>* Defined as hemorrhage caused by a significant clinical event or a drop in hemoglobin of ≥2.0 g/dL or a transfusion of ≥2 units of packed red cells.</p>

<p>The authors concluded that enoxaparin 40 mg SC qd was as effective and safe as UFH SC q8h in preventing thromboembolism after surgery for abdominal and pelvic malignancy.¹</p>
<h2>Enoxacan II Study</h2>
<p>Multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized study²</p>
<h2>Objective²</h2>
<p>Evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for prevention of VTE after elective, curative surgery for abdominal malignancy. A standard thromboprophylaxis regimen of enoxaparin, given for 1 week, was compared with a prolonged regimen of enoxaparin given for 4 weeks.</p>
<h2>Study Design²</h2>
<p>In the open phase of the study</p>

<p><strong>Primary efficacy endpoint:</strong>&nbsp;The incidence of VTE between days 25-31.<sup>2</sup></p>
<p><strong>Secondary efficacy endpoint:</strong>&nbsp;The incidence of death from thromboembolic disease before 3 months.<sup>2</sup></p>
<p><strong>Primary safety endpoint:</strong>&nbsp;The incidence of hemorrhage during the double-blind treatment period.<sup>2</sup></p>
<h2>Results: Efficacy²</h2>
<ul>
 <li>Of the 613 patients recruited, 501 underwent randomization and 332 (165 and 167 for enoxaparin and placebo, respectively) had evaluable venograms.</li>
 <li>The mean duration of treatment was 19.3 days in the enoxaparin arm and 19.5 days in the placebo arm.</li>
 <li>Gastrointestinal surgery followed by genitourinary tract, female reproductive organs, palliative, and other surgeries were the most common procedures.</li>
</ul>

<h2>Results: Safety²</h2>
<ul>
 <li>There were no significant differences in major or minor hemorrhage or other serious adverse events (AEs) during the double-blind period or during the 2-month follow-up period.</li>
 <li>None of the showed thrombocytopenia during either period and there were no deaths during the double-blind period.</li>
 <li>During the 2-month follow-up period, 6 patients (3.6%) died in the placebo group and 3 (1.8%) died in the enoxaparin group.</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The authors concluded that prophylaxis with enoxaparin for 4 weeks following abdominal or pelvic cancer surgery was safe and significantly reduced the incidence of venographically demonstrated thrombosis compared with enoxaparin prophylaxis for 1 week.²</p>
<h2>Enoxacan II Follow-up Study³</h2>
<h2>Objective³</h2>
<p>compared long term, all-cause mortality in the enoxaparin group versus the placebo</p>
<h2>Primary Efficacy Endpoint³</h2>
<p>Survival at 1 year was the primary efficacy endpoint, however every site had collected survival data beyond 1 year (up to 44 months) and therefore a post hoc analysis utilizing all available data was conducted.</p>
<h2>Study Design³</h2>
<p>A cox regression model was used to measure prognostic factors, which for the primary analysis, were defined as whether surgery was palliative or curative, and treatment assignment.</p>
<h2>Population³</h2>
<p>Both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics, including disease site and risk factors.</p>
<h2>Results³</h2>
<p>At 1 year there were 243 enoxaparin-treated patients (96%) and 229 placebo-treated patients (92%) with available follow-up data group.</p>
<p><strong>1-year survival rate</strong>:<sup>3</sup>&nbsp;90.2% for the enoxaparin group and 91.9% for the placebo groups</p>
<p><strong>Palliative surgery:<sup>3</sup></strong>&nbsp;The percentage of patients that underwent palliative surgery was significantly greater in the enoxaparin group compared with the placebo group (10.3% vs. 4.0%; P &lt;0.05).</p>
<p><strong>Curative surgery:<sup>3</sup>&nbsp;</strong>Curative surgery was a more significant prognostic factor compared with palliative surgery (hazard ratio [HR]=0.099; P=0.0001).</p>
<ul>
 <li>Neither the interaction between type of surgery and treatment nor the treatment effect were significant.<sup>3</sup></li>
 <li>At the longest follow-up time periods (43.3 months for the enoxaparin group and 43.5 months for the placebo group), increased survival was greater in the enoxaparin group (HR=0.47, P=0.078).<sup>3</sup></li>
 <li>The mortality rate was significantly greater (P &lt;0.0001) in patients who underwent palliative surgery compared with curative surgery.<sup>3</sup></li>
 <li>After adjustment for the type of surgery, there was a tendency towards decreased mortality among patients undergoing palliative surgery in the enoxaparin group (HR=0.598; P=0.3565) which increased after the 1-year follow-up period (HR=0.469; P=0.078).<sup>3</sup></li>
</ul>
<p>The authors concluded that further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of prolonged prophylaxis with enoxaparin in cancer patients undergoing palliative surgery on long-term survival.<sup>3</sup></p>

References

VTE Prophylaxis in Surgical Patients

<p><strong>Duration of thromboprophylaxis following major abdominopelvic cancer-related surgery – an aid to informed clinical decisionmaking</strong></p>
<h2>Key Takeaway</h2>
<p>Decision on use of extended duration thromboprophylaxis following major abdominopelvic cancer surgery should be made on individual patient basis.* Post-abdominopelvic cancer surgery:</p>
<h3>Extended duration LMWH thromboprophylaxis vs standard duration:</h3>
<p>Significantly reduces 30-day incidence of clinical VTE. No significant increase in 30-day post-operative incidences of clinically relevant bleeding</p>
<h3>Risk prediction:</h3>
<p>In the post-operative period, risk prediction scores like the&nbsp;<u>Caprini score</u>&nbsp;are not used regularly in clinical practice to decide the duration of thromboprophylaxis.</p>
<h2>Why This Matters</h2>
<h3>Risk of post-operative VTE is 2-fold higher and risk of fatal PE is 3-fold higher in patients with cancer vs those undergoing similar surgical procedures for benign disease:</h3>
<p>In patients with cancer undergoing abdominopelvic surgery, VTE was noted as the greatest cause of 30-day post-operative mortality</p>
<h3>This systematic review and meta-analysis:</h3>
<p>Provides clinicians with event rates of symptomatic VTE and clinically relevant bleeding for shared decisionmaking on the duration of thromboprophylaxis in surgical cancer patients</p>
<h2>Key Highlights</h2>
<h3>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis:</h3>
<p><strong>68 Studies (9 RCTS and 59 Observational Studies): 1,631,118 Adult Patients Who Underwent Cancer-Related Abdominopelvic Surgery</strong></p>

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="1">
 <tbody>
  <tr>
   <td colspan="4" style="background-color: rgb(244, 242, 246); border-color: rgb(244, 242, 246);">
    <p><strong>30-Day post-operative incidences†<br>
       of clinical VTE</strong></p></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td rowspan="2">Overall rate</td>
   <td rowspan="2">With extended<br>
     duration<br>
     Thromboprophylaxis<br>
     vs without</td>
   <td colspan="2">Extended duration<br>
     Thromboprophylaxis vs standard</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td>RCTs</td>
   <td>Observational<br>
     studies</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td><b>1.7%</b><br>
     (95% CI: 1.5–1.9)</td>
   <td><b>0.5% vs 1.8%</b><br>
     (95% CI: 0.2–0.9) vs<br>
     (95% CI: 1.3–2.4)</td>
   <td><b>Non significant<br>
      reduction<br>
      0.3% vs 1.4%</b><br>
     (RR: 0.33)</td>
   <td><b>Statistically significant<br>
      reduction<br>
      1.0% vs 2.1%</b><br>
     (RR: 0.48)</td>
  </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="1">
 <tbody>
  <tr>
   <td colspan="4" style="background-color: rgb(244, 242, 246); border-color: rgb(244, 242, 246);"><strong>30-Day post-operative incidences†<br>
      of clinically-relevant bleeding complications</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td rowspan="2">Overall rate</td>
   <td rowspan="2">With extended<br>
     duration<br>
     Thromboprophylaxis<br>
     vs without</td>
   <td colspan="2">Extended duration<br>
     Thromboprophylaxis vs standard</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td>RCTs</td>
   <td>Observational<br>
     studies</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td><b>3.5%</b><br>
     (95% CI: 1.6–6.1)</td>
   <td><b>2.4% vs 3.5%</b><br>
     (95% CI: 0.9–4.7) vs<br>
     (95% CI: 2.0–5.4)</td>
   <td><b>Non significant<br>
      reduction<br>
      2.4% vs 2.0%</b><br>
     (RR: 1.2)</td>
   <td><b>Statistically significant<br>
      reduction<br>
      4.0% vs 4.9%</b><br>
     (RR: 1.0)</td>
  </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

<p><strong>Including observational studies in this systematic review, may be more representative of current clinical practice and better capture the real-world effectiveness of LMWH prophylaxis by including a much broader patient population.</strong></p>
<p><strong>30-day event rates remain important information to establish risk-benefit ratio on the duration of thromboprophylaxis for adult patients who underwent abdominopelvic cancer surgery.</strong></p>
<h3>Study findings suggest:</h3>
<ul>
 <li>Although, extended duration thromboprophylaxis reduces VTE risk, the absolute clinical benefit of reduction in symptomatic VTE events is relatively low</li>
</ul>
<h2>Limitations</h2>
<p>Possibility of bias<sup>‡</sup>&nbsp;due to inclusion of observational studies and RCTs together with studies reporting of asymptomatic events</p>
<p>High levels of statistical heterogenecity<sup>§</sup>&nbsp;in the pooled analysis</p>
<p>Absence of detailed description of patient population or procedures performed in most studies</p>
<p>The rates of fatal pulmonary embolism were not consistently reported and could not be assessed with the meta-analysis.</p>
<p data-font="legal">* Based on underlying risk of bleeding, costs and patient's values and preferences.<br>
  † Subgroup analysis of VTE incidence data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) have not been provided as they did not report on thromboprophylaxis.<br>
  ‡ Selection bias, confounding and misdiagnosis bias.<br>
  § With respect to different cancer types, modes of surgical intervention and type/dose/duration of thromboprophylaxis.</p>

Duration of thromboprophylaxis following major abdominopelvic cancer-related surgery

<h2>American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients</h2>
<p>David R. Anderson, Gian Paolo Morgano, Carole Bennett, Francesco Dentali, Charles W. Francis, David A. Garcia, Susan R. Kahn, Maryam Rahman, Anita Rajasekhar, Frederick B. Rogers, Maureen A. Smythe, Kari A. O. Tikkinen, Adolph J. Yates, Tejan Baldeh, Sara Balduzzi, Jan L. Brożek, Itziar EtxeandiaIkobaltzeta, Herman Johal, Ignacio Neumann, Wojtek Wiercioch, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Holger J. Schünemann, Philipp Dahm</p>
<h2>Objective</h2>
<p>These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.</p>
<h2>Methods</h2>
<p>ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.</p>
<h2>Key highlights</h2>
<p><strong>Major surgery:</strong>&nbsp;The panel suggests pharmacological or mechanical prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). For patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is suggested over no prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). Intermittent compression device is suggested over graduated compression stocking (conditional recommendation). The use of combined prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis alone would depend on risk for VTE and bleeding based on individual patient and type of surgery (conditional recommendation). The panel suggests against using inferior vena cava filters for VTE prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). Use of extended over short-term antithrombotic prophylaxis is suggested (conditional recommendation). The panel further suggests using early or delayed antithrombotic prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). For major general surgery the panel suggests pharmacological prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over no pharmacological prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). The panel suggests against pharmacological prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Orthopedic surgery:&nbsp;</strong>The panel suggests aspirin or anticoagulants in patients undergoing total knee/hip arthroplasty (conditional recommendation). [ Among anticoagulants, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are suggested over LMWH (conditional recommendation). If DOACs are not used, LMWH is suggested over warfarin (conditional recommendation) and LMWH is recommended rather than unfractionated heparin ([UFH]; strong recommendation).] Pharmacological prophylaxis with LMWH or UFH over no prophylaxis is suggested for patients undergoing hip fracture repair (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Major neurosurgery:&nbsp;</strong>The panel suggests against using pharmacological prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). For the subset of patients using pharmacological prophylaxis, the panel suggests using LMWH over UFH (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Urological procedures:</strong>&nbsp;The panel suggests against using pharmacological prophylaxis in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate or radical prostatectomy. For the subset of patients using pharmacological prophylaxis, the panel suggests using LMWH or UFH (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Cardiac or major vascular surgery:</strong>&nbsp;The panel suggests pharmacological prophylaxis or no pharmacological prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). When pharmacological prophylaxis is used, LMWH or UFH is suggested (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Major trauma:</strong>&nbsp;For patients with low-to-moderate risk for bleeding, pharmacological prophylaxis is suggested over no pharmacological prophylaxis (conditional recommendation). The panel suggests against pharmacological prophylaxis in patients at high risk for bleeding (conditional recommendation). For patients using pharmacological prophylaxis, the panel suggests using LMWH or UFH (conditional recommendation).</p>
<p><strong>Major gynecological surgery:</strong>&nbsp;The panel suggests using pharmacological prophylaxis over no pharmacological prophylaxis and suggests using LMWH or UFH (conditional recommendation).</p>

ASH 2019 Guidelines for Surgical Prophylaxis

<h2>Advanced age alone might be an alternative to complex models in predicting venous thromboembolism among medical inpatients.</h2>
<h2>Takeaway</h2>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>Padua, Caprini and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) risk assessment models (RAMs) had poor discriminating&nbsp;ability to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical inpatients.</p></li>
 <li>Findings from this&nbsp;secondary analysis of&nbsp;PREVENU&nbsp;study&nbsp;suggest that none of these RAMs provided a better prediction than advanced age alone.</li>
 <li>Using an age&nbsp;above 70 years might be the easiest and most practical way of identifying medical inpatients requiring thromboprophylaxis.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Why This Matters</h2>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>International consensus is lacking on criteria for thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients.</p></li>
 <li>A strategy based on age alone is easily implementable in regular clinical practice.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Study Design</h2>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>This retrospective study included 14,910 patients (median age, 73 years) from&nbsp;<a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01212393"><u>Prevenu</u></a>&nbsp;trial who were hospitalised for acute medical illnesses in a medical ward for at least 2 days.</p></li>
 <li>Critically ill patients were excluded.</li>
 <li>The primary aim was to assess the global discriminatory power of the RAMs in predicting VTE in comparison with advanced age alone.</li>
 <li>The secondary aim was to compare the incidence of VTE between low-&nbsp;and high-risk patients and assess the robustness of primary results.</li>
 <li>Patients with a Padua score ≥4, Caprini score ≥3, IMPROVE score ≥2 (intermediate and high risk) and IMPROVE score ≥4 (high risk) were considered at an increased risk for VTE.</li>
 <li>Advanced age was defined as reaching 70 years, as defined in the Padua score.</li>
 <li>Funding: None.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Key Results</h2>
<ul>
 <li>
  <p>Overall, 1.8% of patients experienced symptomatic VTE during follow-up.</p></li>
 <li>The median time until VTE occurrence was 22 (interquartile range, 10-46) days.</li>
 <li>The area under curve (AUC) of predicting VTE was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for advanced age alone.</li>
 <li>None of the 3 RAMs had a significantly different AUC compared with advanced age alone for predicting VTE (P=0.284): 
  <ul>
   <li>Padua: 0.64&nbsp;(95% CI, 0.61-0.67);</li>
   <li>IMPROVE: 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66); and</li>
   <li>Caprini: 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63).</li>
  </ul></li>
 <li>In low-risk patients, VTE incidence was 0.6%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.6% and 1.2%, according to Padua, Caprini, IMPROVE intermediate-high&nbsp;score, IMPROVE high&nbsp;score and advanced age, respectively.</li>
 <li>In high-risk patients, VTE incidence was 2.2%, 1.9%, 2.5%, 3.0% and 2.3% according to Padua, Caprini, IMPROVE intermediate-high&nbsp;score, IMPROVE high&nbsp;score and advanced age, respectively.</li>
 <li>Global performances were poor for 3 RAMs and advanced age (Youden Index for all, &lt;0.25%).</li>
 <li>After excluding patients who received anticoagulant prophylaxis during their hospital stay, the AUC of predicting VTE was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.70) for advanced age and not significantly different for the RAMs (P=0.266).</li>
</ul>

Acute Medical Illness: Advanced Age Alone Predicts Venous Thromboembolism Similar to Existing Risk Assessment Models

DYSLIPIDEMIA

Treating to target in clinical practice: Why is it important to achieve recommended LDL-C levels?

<p>Prof. Luis Masana Head of the Lipid and Cardiovascular Risk Unit at the University Hospital Sant Joan, Reus, Spain discusses importance to achieve recommended LDL cholesterol levels.</p>

Statin/ezetimibe SPC for better adherence to LLT

<p>This large cohort study of patients from the Lombardy region (Italy) demonstrated that the single-pill combination of statin and ezetimibe substantially improved adherence to drug therapy vs the two-pill combination of respective drugs.</p>

To read the full content, activate your Sanofi Campus account. Please confirm your email address in the email you received.

If you didn't receive our first email at <strong>{email}</strong> to confirm your account you can request a new one below. If you don't see it, you may need to <strong>check your spam</strong> folder.

This information will only be used to validate your account and will not be distributed.

title

Before starting exploring, we can suggest you <strong>specific and relevant content</strong>

Title

This website is for healthcare professionals only

Welcome to BP Sanofi Campus

Create new password

To offer you a personalised experience, you must

Your profile is incomplete

The ADCT gives a measure of how controlled the eczema is. Answer these 6 simple questions with your patient to find the ADCT score. It will indicate proper course of action.

Atopic dermatitis, a type of eczema, may be affecting your Patient's life in more ways than you know.

Take the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT)

Enjoy more exclusive content{newline}by <a>registering today</a>

Already have an account? <a>Sign in here</a>

Best practices on optimising patient care

Get a customised view of the topics that you're interested in, along with the ability to save content to watch or read at a later date.

Unlimited access to premier content, white papers, case studies, research papers, webinars, training, and up-to-date scientific medical resources.

Personalised content based on your areas of interest

Connect and stay up-to-date with peers in your area of speciality and topics of interest through free events and leadership forums.

Please sign in to continue and read the full article

Please sign up to continue reading the full article.

We respect your privacy and will not share your information with any 3rd parties.

Topical guides written specifically for patients

Unlimited access to the latest patient guide guides and resources. Share content with your patients with easy-to-use online tools.

Please complete your profile to read the content.

Your profile is not validated yet. Please verify your inbox.

Restricted Access

We can't find the page you're looking for

You are going to a website that is not operated by Sanofi. Sanofi has no control over the content or availability of linked sites or resources, and accepts no liability or responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of them. Please ensure that you read the legal and privacy policy sections of any third-party site to which you link.

You are about to leave Sanofi Campus website.

You are now leaving this site to visit a partner website.

Thank you for visiting COPD Sanofi Campus.

This website is for healthcare professionals only.

Welcome to COPD Sanofi Campus.

Welcome to COPD Sanofi Campus

Welcome to CSU Sanofi Campus

Please refresh the page to access the content

Sorry, something went wrong

We're usually a treasure chest of knowledge, but we couldn't find what you're looking for.

We were unable to find what you're searching for

You are about to leave Campus.sanofi/uk.

Images from <a>iStockphoto.com</a>, <b>Fotolia.de</b>, <c>gettyimages.de</c>, <d>pexels.com</d> and <e>photocase.de</e> were used for our websites.

<strong>Thank you for registering. Before we get started, we need to confirm your email address to ensure that we have the correct information.</strong><br></br><br></br><br></br>

<strong>Please follow these steps to complete your registration:</strong><br></br><br></br>

<strong>Would you like to receive future text messages about Beyfortus updates?</strong>

<strong>Sanofi is here to help support your patients, their families, and caregivers.</strong><br></br><br></br>For more information regarding Beyfortus®, call <a.callPhoneNumberBeyfortus>1-855-BEYFORTUS (1-855-239-3678)</a.callPhoneNumberBeyfortus> or sign up below to receive the latest updates via email or text.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

Would you like to learn more about Beyfortus<sup>®</sup> (nirsevimab-alip) 50 mg and 100 mg injection?<br></br>Leave us your contact details, and a Sanofi representative will be in touch.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

<strong>Would you also like to receive future messages and updates about Beyfortus?</strong>

Do you want to participate in the Beyfortus Reservation Program?

What information are you interested in learning more about? (Optional)

Are you enrolled in CENRIFKI REMS?

Request a visit from your local ALPROLIX representative to learn more.<br></br><br></br>Call <a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>1-800-745-4447</a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>, Option 5, or complete the form below. The information you provide will be maintained in accordance with our <a.usPrivacyPolicy>Privacy Policy</a.usPrivacyPolicy>.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

Request a visit from your local ALTUVIIIO representative to learn more.<br></br><br></br>Call <a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>1-800-745-4447</a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>, Option 5, or complete the form below. The information you provide will be maintained in accordance with our <a.usPrivacyPolicy>Privacy Policy</a.usPrivacyPolicy>.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

Request a visit from your local QFITLIA representative to learn more.<br></br><br></br>Call <a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>1-800-745-4447</a.callPhoneNumberAltuviiio>, Option 5, or complete the form below. The information you provide will be maintained in accordance with our <a.usPrivacyPolicy>Privacy Policy</a.usPrivacyPolicy>.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

Sign up to schedule an office visit with your ALPROLIX® Representative or receive updates about ALPROLIX.<br></br><br></br>Please complete the form below. The information you provide will be maintained in accordance with our <a.usPrivacyPolicy>Privacy Policy</a.usPrivacyPolicy>.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required.</strong>

Sign up to schedule an office visit with your local Sanofi representative and/or to receive updates about Qfitlia.<br></br><br></br>Please complete the form below. The information you provide will be maintained in accordance with our <a.usPrivacyPolicy>Privacy Policy</a.usPrivacyPolicy>.<br></br><br></br><strong>All fields are required (unless otherwise specified).</strong>

All fields are required. (unless otherwise specified)

This site is intended for healthcare professionals only and contains information on Sanofi medicines, educational resources and more. Please click the appropriate button below. By entering this site, you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional. This site contains promotional information. Please note that some of the content on the website is only relevant for HCPs.

Welcome to Sanofi Campus

Welcome to ITP Sanofi Campus

This content is only available to registered users. Please sign in or register to view this content.

Please Sign In

Email verification

You're seeing a preview of the portal. Clear your cookies (by closing your browser window for example) to go back to public mode.

We've updated our privacy notice to better protect your data and enhance your experience. Please take a moment to review the changes by <privacyNewTab>clicking here</privacyNewTab>. Your privacy matters for us. <br></br>Please click on continue to confirm you have read the new privacy notice.

Privacy Notice Update

Communication consent

My consents

Password

Confirm password

{resultsCount, plural, one {result} other {results}}

Please log in to access to the results

You need to sign-in to your account in order to access medical content.

Please Log In

To access the results, please register in under 1 minute

You are now leaving the Sanofi content section of our site and entering the external medical bibliographic search content section.

You are entering to the External Scientific Content Site

You are now leaving the external medical bibliographic search section of our site and entering the Sanofi content section.

Latest Articles