No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Long-term daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin has been standard treatment for such patients. The purpose of this study was to assess if an oral factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, would offer an alternative treatment for VTE in patients with cancer. Patient and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, pilot trial in the United Kingdom, patients with active cancer who had symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), incidental PE, or symptomatic lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recruited. Allocation was to dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1, then 150 IU/kg daily for months 2-6) or rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, then 20 mg once daily for a total of 6 months). The primary outcome was VTE recurrence over 6 months. Safety was assessed by major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB). A sample size of 400 patients would provide estimates of VTE recurrence to within ± 4.5%, assuming a VTE recurrence rate at 6 months of 10%. Results A total of 203 patients were randomly assigned to each group, 58% of whom had metastases. Twenty-six patients experienced recurrent VTE (dalteparin, n = 18; rivaroxaban, n = 8). The 6-month cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 11% (95% CI, 7% to 16%) with dalteparin and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) with rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.99). The 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding was 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for dalteparin and 6% (95% CI, 3% to 11%) for rivaroxaban (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.96). Corresponding rates of CRNMB were 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) and 13% (95% CI, 9% to 19%), respectively (HR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.69). Conclusion Rivaroxaban was associated with relatively low VTE recurrence but higher CRNMB compared with dalteparin.

Many techniques for management of hypertrophic scars and keloids have been proven through extensive use, but few have been supported by prospective studies with adequate control groups. Several new therapies showed good results in small-scale trials, but these have not been repeated in larger trials with long-term follow-up. This article reports a qualitative overview of the available clinical literature by an international panel of experts using standard methods of appraisal. The article provides evidence-based recommendations on prevention and treatment of abnormal scarring and, where studies are insufficient, consensus on best practice. The recommendations focus on the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids, and are internationally applicable in a range of clinical situations. These recommendations support a move to a more evidence-based approach in scar management. This approach highlights a primary role for silicone gel sheeting and intralesional corticosteroids in the management of a wide variety of abnormal scars. The authors concluded that these are the only treatments for which sufficient evidence exists to make evidence-based recommendations. A number of other therapies that are in common use have achieved acceptance by the authors as standard practice. However, it is highly desirable that many standard practices and new emerging therapies undergo large-scale studies with long-term follow-up before being recommended conclusively as alternative therapies for scar management.