Akl, Elie A.

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.

Abstract In July 2022, these guidelines were reviewed by an expert work group convened by ASH. Review included limited searches for new evidence and discussion of the search results. Following this review, the ASH Committee on Quality agreed to continue monitoring the supporting evidence rather than revise or retire these guidelines at this time. Limited searches and expert review will be repeated annually going forward until these guidelines are revised or retired. Background: Red cell transfusions remain a mainstay of therapy for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), but pose significant clinical challenges. Guidance for specific indications and administration of transfusion, as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions (DHTRs), and iron overload may improve outcomes. Objective: Our objective was to develop evidence-based guidelines to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about transfusion support for SCD and the management of transfusion-related complications. Methods: The American Society of Hematology formed a multidisciplinary panel that was balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest and that included a patient representative. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to form recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel developed 10 recommendations focused on red cell antigen typing and matching, indications, and mode of administration (simple vs red cell exchange), as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, DHTRs, and iron overload. Conclusions: The majority of panel recommendations were conditional due to the paucity of direct, high-certainty evidence for outcomes of interest. Research priorities were identified, including prospective studies to understand the role of serologic vs genotypic red cell matching, the mechanism of HTRs resulting from specific alloantigens to inform therapy, the role and timing of regular transfusions during pregnancy for women, and the optimal treatment of transfusional iron overload in SCD.

Abstract The American Society of Hematology (ASH) convened 5 guideline panels to develop clinical practice recommendations addressing 5 management areas of highest importance to individuals living with sickle cell disease: pain, cerebrovascular complications, pulmonary and kidney complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Panels were multidisciplinary and consisted of patient representatives, content experts, and methodologists. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center conducted systematic reviews based on a priori selected questions. In this exposition, we describe the process used by ASH, including the GRADE approach (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for rating certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework. We also describe several unique challenges faced by the guideline panels and the specific innovations and solutions used to address them, including a curriculum to train patients to engage in guideline development, dealing with the opioid crisis, and working with indirect and noncomparative evidence.

Introduction Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits. Methods and analysis First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials. Ethics and dissemination Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013003526.

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.ConclusionThis RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.