No abstract

Summary. Background: Oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran etexilate, an oral, direct thrombin inhibitor, that do not require monitoring or dose adjustment offer potential for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee replacement surgery. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, 2076 patients undergoing total knee replacement received dabigatran etexilate, 150 mg or 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 h after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery, for 6-10 days. Patients were followed up for 3 months. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total VTE (venographic or symptomatic) and mortality during treatment, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of bleeding events. Results: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 37.7% (193 of 512) of the enoxaparin group vs. 36.4% (183 of 503) of the dabigatran etexilate 220-mg group (absolute difference, )1.3%; 95% CI, )7.3 to 4.6) and 40.5% (213 of 526) of the 150-mg group (2.8%; 95% CI,)3.1 to 8.7). Both doses were non-inferior to enoxaparin on the basis of the prespecified non-inferiority criterion. The incidence of major bleeding did not differ significantly between the three groups (1.3% vs. 1.5% and 1.3% respectively). No significant differences in the incidences of liver enzyme elevation and acute coronary events were observed during treatment or followup. Conclusions: Dabigatran etexilate (220 mg or 150 mg) was at least as effective as enoxaparin and had a similar safety profile for prevention of VTE after total knee replacement surgery.

Reilly P for the BISTRO II Study Group. A new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate, compared with enoxaparin for prevention of thromboembolic events following total hip or knee replacement: the BISTRO II randomized trial. J Thromb Haemost 2005; 3:Summary. Background: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor undergoing evaluation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following orthopedic surgery. Methods: In a multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study, 1973 patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement were randomized to 6-10 days of oral dabigatran etexilate (50, 150 mg twice daily, 300 mg once daily, 225 mg twice daily), starting 1-4 h after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) starting 12 h prior to surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of VTE (detected by bilateral venography or symptomatic events) during treatment. Results: Of the 1949 treated patients, 1464 (75%) patients were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. VTE occurred in 28.5%, 17.4%, 16.6%, 13.1% and 24% of patients assigned to dabigatran etexilate 50, 150 mg twice daily, 300 mg once daily, 225 mg twice daily and enoxaparin, respectively. A significant dose-dependent decrease in VTE occurred with increasing doses of dabigatran etexilate (P < 0.0001). Compared with enoxaparin, VTE was significantly lower in patients receiving 150 mg twice daily [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, P ¼ 0.04], 300 mg once daily (OR 0.61, P ¼ 0.02) and 225 mg twice daily (OR 0.47, P ¼ 0.0007). Compared with enoxaparin, major bleeding was significantly lower with 50 mg twice daily (0.3% vs. 2.0%, P ¼ 0.047) but elevated with higher doses, nearly reaching statistical significance with the 300 mg once-daily dose (4.7%, P ¼ 0.051). Conclusions: Oral administration of dabigatran etexilate, commenced early in the postoperative period, was effective and safe across a range of doses. Further optimization of the efficacy/safety balance will be addressed in future studies.

Physical training increased pain-free and total walking distance in level 2 studies. Only level 3 studies support the usefulness of smoking cessation. In level 1 studies, pentoxifylline and nafronyl increased pain-free and total walking distance, but the average effects were relatively small.

IntroductionThe influence of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and other anticoagulants on the spread of cancer has been reported since the early 1960s.1 However, clinical studies investigating the use of heparins in cancer patients have not produced consistent results.2 Intravenous, adjusted-dose UFH for 5 to 10 days has been the standard initial treatment for venous thrombosis. More recently, subcutaneous, fixed-dose, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), which are fractions of the parent compound, have been shown to be safe and effective alternatives to UFH in the initial treatment for venous thromboembolism.3-5 In one of our randomized clinical trials comparing LMWH and UFH in the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we observed an unexpected difference in 6-month mortality among cancer patients in favor of LMWH, which could not be attributed to a difference in the incidence of thrombotic or bleeding complications.6 A similar observation in favor of LMWH was reported in a subsequent study and in a meta-analysis of trials.7,8 The number of cancer patients included in these studies was small, and adjustment of the observed effect for the baseline characteristics of the cancer patients was not possible. However, these findings suggested an inhibitory effect of LMWH on tumor growth or metastasis, which is less apparent or absent for UFH, resulting in a beneficial effect on the survival of cancer patients. This hypothesis is supported by the observations, in experimental studies, that LMWH and low molecular weight heparan sulfate, in comparison to UFH, effectively suppressed angiogenesis, a process necessary for tumor growth and metastasis.9,10 On the other hand, animal studies that investigated the effect of chemically-modified heparins on the spread of cancer did not detect a superior anti-tumor effect of LMWH compared to UFH; both were found to inhibit metastasis.11,12 To date, the effect of LMWH on cancer survival in humans has not been investigated as a primary objective. If a consistent and beneficial effect of LMWH on mortality is indeed present, such a study would be warranted.We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized clinical trials where LMWH was compared with UFH in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to estimate the crude treatment effect of LMWH on mortality in cancer patients compared to UFH. Subsequently, we adjusted this treatment effect for age, gender, and primary malignancy site by reanalyzing data from three of those trials.3-5 This effect was further adjusted for other prognostic factors, including cancer histology, tumor stage, presence of metastases, duration of cancer, and concomitant use of cancer treatment, by analyzing individual patient data from the largest randomized trial.5