Schünemann, Holger J

Background Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. Objective These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. Methods ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. Conclusions The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia.

Abstract In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements—many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development—in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society’s guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice.

Abstract Background: Guidelines suggest the use of the Khorana score to select patients with solid cancer receiving chemotherapy for thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but its performance in different types of cancers remains uncertain. Methods: The present analysis includes individual patient data from seven randomized controlled trials that had compared prophylactic (ultra)-low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or observation in patients with solid cancer. The analysis addresses the performance of the continuous and dichotomized Khorana score in predicting the 6-month risk of VTE in the trial control groups, overall and in types of cancer studies, as well as the efficacy and safety of LMWH among patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Random effects meta-analysis provided the basis for summary estimates. Findings: In the 3,403 patients from the control groups included in the analyses, the mean age was 61 years, 59% were male, and 58% had lung cancer. During 6-months of follow-up, 188 patients (5.5%) developed VTE. Overall, the 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate risk patients (OR 1.6; 95%-CI 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95%-CI, 0.72-1.7) than in those with other types of cancer (OR 4.4; 95%-CI, 2.7-7.3; P interaction=0.002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared to placebo or observation (OR 0.36; 95%-CI, 0.22-0.58). In the group of patients with types of cancer other than lung cancer and a high-risk Khorana score (N=619), the 6-month VTE incidence was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.7) among LMWH recipients and 13% (95% CI, 6.8 to 24) among those not receiving LMWH (OR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.46; P <0.001). There was no difference in major bleeding (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.5). Interpretation: The Khorana score performs poorly in differentiating between those at high and low risk of VTE in patients with lung cancer, but is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of VTE in those with other types of cancer. Thromboprophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and through a direct anti-tumour effect. Study-level meta-analysis indicates a reduction in VTE and provide moderate certainty that a small survival benefit exists; it is unclear if patients with specific cancers benefit more or less. Utilizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCT), this individual participant data meta-analysis examines the impact of heparin on survival, VTE and major bleeding in oncological patients randomized to low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or no LMWH. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic search for all RCTS (last search date March 2017) and contacted authors and sponsors to obtain individual participant data of patients with solid cancers and no other indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. We utilized the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and produce an evidence profile. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. We calculated the impact on mortality through multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We adjusted the analysis for age, cancer type and metastasis status. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups, including type of cancer, we tested interaction terms in the statistical model. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (n=10,041 participants) were eligible for inclusion and we obtained data from 82.4% of the participants (13 RCTs, n=8,278; n=4,139 for LMWH and n=4,139 for no LMWH). The meta-analysis revealed an adjusted relative risk of mortality within one year of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.03) and a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.14) after one year. The relative risk for VTE was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.71), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.74) for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.77) for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, separately. For every 1,000 patients treated, approximately 16 fewer would experience symptomatic DVT and 16 fewer would experience any PE. The adjusted relative risk for major bleeding throughout trial duration was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.69; P=0.17). Subgroup analysis, by cancer type, of VTE occurrence throughout trial duration identified lung cancer OR=0.52 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.68; P<0.001) and pancreatic cancer OR=0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.88; P=0.01) patients as experiencing the greatest benefit from LMWH treatment. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was moderate to high. Conclusion: LMWH reduces risk of VTE without increasing risk of bleeding but does not improve survival across all patients. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial; Cancer Research UK: Research Funding. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project.

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess and report certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This GRADE concept article is not GRADE guidance but introduces certainty of net benefit, defined as the certainty that the balance between desirable and undesirable health effects is favourable. Determining certainty of net benefit requires considering certainty of effect estimates, the expected importance of outcomes and variability in importance, and the interaction of these concepts. Certainty of net harm is the certainty that the net effect is unfavourable. Guideline panels using or testing this approach might limit strong recommendations to actions with a high certainty of net benefit or against actions with a moderate or high certainty of net harm. Recommendations may differ in direction or strength from that suggested by the certainty of net benefit or harm when influenced by cost, equity, acceptability or feasibility.