Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
6 References (6 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Journal Critical reviews in oncology/hematology
Year 2022
Loading references information
Therapeutic advancements have improved pediatric cancer prognosis, shifting the interest towards the management of psychosocial burden and treatment-related morbidity. To critically appraise the available evidence, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on supportive interventions for childhood cancer. Thirty-four publications (92 meta-analyses, 1 network, 14,521 participants) were included. The most concrete data showed a reduction in procedure-related pain and distress through hypnosis. Moreover, exercise improved the functional mobility of the patients. Regarding pharmacological interventions, most of the meta-analyses pertained to the treatment of nausea/vomiting (ondansetron was effective) and infections/febrile neutropenia [granulocyte-(macrophage) colony-stimulating factors showed benefits]. Substantial heterogeneity was detected in 31 associations. Conclusively, supportive interventions for pediatric cancer are being thoroughly evaluated. However, most of the studies are small and of moderate quality, highlighting the need for more randomized evidence in order to increase precision in improving the quality of life of patients, survivors and their families. © 2022 Elsevier B.V.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Journal Drug Safety
Year 2016
Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from ‘real-world’ postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk–benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an ‘evidence summary’ approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research. © 2016, The Author(s).

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

Journal Annals of Saudi medicine
Year 2015
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer. METHODS: Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Signaler Buenos Aires: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS). Informe de Respuesta Rápida N° 274.
Year 2012

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

CONTEXTE: L'utilisation du traitement anticoagulant pendant la grossesse est difficile en raison du risque de complications à la fois mère ou le foetus. Cette directive se concentre sur la gestion de la TEV et thrombophilie ainsi que l'utilisation d'agents anti-thrombotiques pendant la grossesse. Méthodes: Les méthodes de cette directive suivre la méthodologie pour le développement de la thérapie antithrombotique et la prévention des lignes directrices de la thrombose: Traitement antithrombotique et la prévention de la thrombose, 9ème édition: American College of Physicians lignes directrices de la poitrine de Evidence-Based Clinical Practice dans ce supplément. RÉSULTATS: Nous recommandons héparine de bas poids moléculaire pour la prévention et le traitement de la TEV chez les femmes enceintes au lieu de l'héparine non fractionnée (Grade 1B). Pour les femmes enceintes atteintes de la TEV aiguë, nous suggérons que les anticoagulants être poursuivi pendant au moins 6 semaines après l'accouchement (pour une durée minimum d'un traitement de 3 mois) par rapport aux durées plus courtes de traitement (Niveau 2C). Pour les femmes qui remplissent les critères de laboratoire pour les anticorps (APLA) syndrome des antiphospholipides et répondent aux critères de l'APLA cliniques basés sur une histoire de trois ou plus des pertes de la grossesse, il est recommandé administration avant l'accouchement de l'héparine non fractionnée prophylactique ou intermédiaire-dose ou prophylactique bas poids moléculaire héparine associée à l'aspirine à faible dose (75-100 mg / j) pendant l'absence de traitement (Grade 1B). Pour les femmes avec thrombophilie héréditaire et une histoire de complications de la grossesse, il est conseillé de ne pas utiliser une prophylaxie anti-thrombotique (Grade 2C). Pour les femmes ayant deux ou plusieurs fausses couches mais sans APLA ou thrombophilie, nous déconseillons la prophylaxie antithrombotique (Grade 1B). CONCLUSIONS: La plupart des recommandations contenues dans ce guide sont basées sur des études observationnelles et l'extrapolation à partir d'autres populations. Il ya un besoin urgent d'études bien conçues dans cette population.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Auteurs Akl EA , Muti P , Schünemann HJ
Journal Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnętrznej
Year 2008
Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: avantages et les inconvénients relatifs des anticoagulants sont nécessaires pour les décisions concernant l'anticoagulation appropriée chez les patients atteints de cancer. OBJECTIFS: Examiner les avantages et les inconvénients des anticoagulants pour des indications d'amélioration prophylactiques, thérapeutiques et de survie chez les patients atteints de cancer. Patients et méthodes: Vue d'ensemble de 6 recensions systématiques de l'anticoagulation dans le cancer de la suite de la Cochrane Collaboration et classement des recommandations d'évaluation, de développement et d'évaluation méthodologie. RÉSULTATS: Central veineuse cathéters thromboprophylaxie avec de l'héparine ou la warfarine ne réduit pas significativement l'incidence de la thrombose veineuse profonde symptomatique (TVP) (risque relatif [RR] 0,43, IC 95% 0,18 à 1,06 et RR = 0,62, IC 95% de 0,30 à 1,27 respectivement) . Pour la thromboprophylaxie périopératoire, à faible poids moléculaire héparine (HBPM) et l'héparine non fractionnée (HNF) ont des effets similaires sur la mortalité (RR 0,89, IC 95% 0,61 à 1,28) et la morbidité. Pour le traitement initial de la maladie thromboembolique veineuse (MTEV), les HBPM par rapport à l'héparine non fractionnée réduit la mortalité à 3 mois (RR 0,71, IC 95% de 0,52 à 0,98). Pour le traitement à long terme de la TEV, les HBPM par rapport à des antagonistes de la vitamine K réduit la récurrence de TEV (hazard ratio [HR] 0,47, IC 95% de 0,32 à 0,71), mais pas la mortalité (HR 0,96, IC 95% 0,81 à 1,14). Comme les interventions visant à améliorer la survie, la warfarine suggère un bénéfice de survie à 6 mois dans le sous-groupe de cancer du poumon à petites cellules (SCLC) (RR = 0,69, IC 95% de 0,50 à 0,96), tandis que l'héparine suggèrent un bénéfice de survie chez les patients atteints de cancer en général (RH 0,77, IC 95% 0,65 à 0,91) et chez ceux ayant limité CPPC en particulier (HR 0,56, IC 95% 0,38 au 0,83). CONCLUSIONS: Chez les patients atteints de cancer, les données actuelles ne supporte pas l'utilisation systématique de la thromboprophylaxie pour les cathéters veineux centraux ou un anticoagulant spécifique pour la thromboprophylaxie postopératoire. Anticoagulants peut améliorer la survie, mais davantage de données seront utiles dans le choix des sous-groupes qui bénéficient le plus.