Low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended over warfarin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer largely based on results of a single, large trial.OBJECTIVE To study the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute, symptomatic VTE in patients with active cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized, open-label study with blinded central adjudication of study outcomes enrolled patients in 164 centers in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North, Central, and South America between August 2010 and November 2013. Adult patients with active cancer (defined as histologic diagnosis of cancer and receiving anticancer therapy or diagnosed with, or received such therapy, within the previous 6 months) and objectively documented proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, with a life expectancy greater than 6 months and without contraindications for anticoagulation, were followed up for 180 days and for 30 days after the last study medication dose for collection of safety data.INTERVENTIONS Tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 6 months vs conventional therapy with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 5 to 10 days followed by warfarin at a dose adjusted to maintain the international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrimary efficacy outcome was a composite of centrally adjudicated recurrent DVT, fatal or nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and incidental VTE. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and overall mortality.RESULTS Nine hundred patients were randomized and included in intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. Recurrent VTE occurred in 31 of 449 patients treated with tinzaparin and 45 of 451 patients treated with warfarin (6-month cumulative incidence, 7.2% for tinzaparin vs 10.5% for warfarin; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]; P = .07). There were no differences in major bleeding (12 patients for tinzaparin vs 11 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.40-1.99]; P = .77) or overall mortality (150 patients for tinzaparin vs 138 patients for warfarin; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.36]; P = .54). A significant reduction in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was observed with tinzaparin (49 of 449 patients for tinzaparin vs 69 of 451 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40-0.84]; P = .004).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with active cancer and acute symptomatic VTE, the use of full-dose tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) daily compared with warfarin for 6 months did not significantly reduce the composite measure of recurrent VTE and was not associated with reductions in overall mortality or major bleeding, but was associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Further studies are needed to assess whether the efficacy outcomes would be different in patients at higher risk of recurrent VTE.

CATCH is the first large study comparing the effects of an AIIA and an ACEI on LVMI. Candesartan cilexetil was found to be equally effective as enalapril in reducing SBP, DBP and LVMI in hypertensives with LVH, according to both ITT and PP analyses.

Although seronegative subjects with EIA have higher baseline DAS28 compared to seropositive subjects, they have a good response to treatment and are less likely to develop erosive disease during followup.

Our objective was to identify distinct trajectories of disease activity state (DAS) and assess variation in radiographic progression, function and quality of life over the first two years of early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). The CATCH (Canadian early ArThritis CoHort) is a prospective study recruiting ERA patients from academic and community rheumatology clinics in Canada. Sequential DAS28 scores were used to identify five mutually exclusive groups in the cohort (n = 1,586) using growth-based trajectory modeling. Distinguishing baseline sociodemographic and disease variables, treatment required, and differences in radiographic progression and quality of life measures over two years were assessed. The trajectory groups are characterized as: Group 1 (20%) initial high DAS improving rapidly to remission (REM); Group 2 (21%) initial moderate DAS improving rapidly to REM; Group 3 (30%) initial moderate DAS improving gradually to low DAS; Group 4 (19%) initial high DAS improving continuously to low DAS; and Group 5 (10%) initial high DAS improving gradually only to moderate DAS. Groups differed significantly in age, sex, race, education, employment, income and presence of comorbidities. Group 5 had persistent steroid requirements and the highest biologic therapy use. Group 2 had lower odds (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.58) and Group 4 higher odds (OR 1.94, 95%CI 0.90 to 4.20) of radiographic progression compared to Group 1. Group 1 had the best improvement in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire 1.08 (SD 0.68) units), Physical Component Score (16.4 (SD 10.2) units), Mental Component Score (9.7 (SD 12.5) units) and fatigue (4.1 (SD 3.3) units). In conclusion, distinct disease activity state trajectories explain variable outcomes in ERA. Early prediction of disease course to tailor therapy and addressing social determinants of health could optimize outcomes.

RF and ACPA have the potential to revert and convert during the early course of disease. Fluctuations in RF and ACPA were not associated with clinical outcomes.