MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2163276820 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.lba-2.lba-2

A Randomized Trial of Long-Term Tinzaparin, a Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH), Versus Warfarin for Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Cancer Patients - the CATCH Study

2014· article· en· W2163276820 sur OpenAlexaff
Agnes Lee, Pieter W. Kamphuisen, Guy Meyer, Rupert Bauersachs, Mette S. Janas, Mikala F. Jarner, Alok A. Khorana

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineWarfarinPulmonary embolismClinical endpointDeep veinSurgeryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialLow molecular weight heparinThrombosisAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with cancer and VTE have a substantial risk of recurrent VTE. LMWH reduces the risk of symptomatic, recurrent VTE compared with warfarin and is recommended as the preferred anticoagulant by consensus guidelines. However, the evidence is based largely on a single, open-label randomized trial (CLOT; Lee et al NEJM 2003). Warfarin is still often used for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients worldwide. Methods The primary objective of this randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase III trial (CATCH; NCT01130025) was to assess the efficacy of tinzaparin in preventing recurrent VTE in patients with active cancer and acute, symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). Patients were randomized (stratified by geographic region, tumor characteristic [distant metastasis, no distant metastasis, hematological malignancy] and history of VTE) to receive tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily for 6 months or initial tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily for 5–10 days overlapped and followed by dose-adjusted warfarin (target INR 2.0–3.0) for 6 months. The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent VTE verified by objective, standard imaging and blinded central adjudication; this was a composite primary endpoint that included symptomatic DVT and/or PE, incidental proximal DVT and/or PE and fatal PE. The primary safety endpoint was incidence of major bleeding. All patients were followed up to 6 months or death, whichever came sooner. Blinded central adjudication was also performed for all bleeding events and causes of death. A proportional hazards model for competing risks was applied to all randomized patients, treating all non-VTE-related deaths as competing events. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board reviewed safety data at regular intervals. Results Nine hundred patients were included from 165 sites in 32 countries across 5 continents. Of these, 449 were randomized to tinzaparin and 451 to warfarin. Mean age was 59 years (range 18–89); 59% female. A total of 77% of patients had a baseline ECOG performance status (PS) of 0–1 and 23% had a PS of 2. The most common primary tumor sites were gynecologic (23%), colorectal (13%), lung (12%), breast (9%); 10% had hematological malignancies. At the time of randomization, metastatic disease was present in 55% of patients and 44% had received prior cancer treatment (chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiation). Time-in-therapeutic range was 47% in the warfarin arm, with 27% above and 26% below the range. Over the 6-month trial period, 31 patients (6.9%) in the tinzaparin arm experienced recurrent VTE compared with 45 (10%) in the warfarin arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65 [95% CI 0.41–1.03; P=0.07]) (see figure). There were 2 patients with incidental VTE, both were in the warfarin arm. Symptomatic non-fatal DVT occurred in 12 patients (2.7%) in the tinzaparin arm and 24 (5.3%) in the warfarin arm (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.24–0.96]; P=0.04). Symptomatic non-fatal PE occurred in 3 patients in the tinzaparin arm and 2 in the warfarin arm; fatal PE occurred in 17 (3.8%) patients in each arm (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.49–1.88]; P=0.90). There was no difference in the incidence of major bleeding events (n=13 [2.9%] in the tinzaparin arm and 12 [2.7%] in the warfarin arm), but significantly fewer patients experienced clinically relevant non-major bleeding with tinzaparin than warfarin (50 [11%] and 73 [16%] patients, respectively; P=0.03). No difference in mortality was seen with 6-month survival rates of 59% and 60%, respectively. Conclusions In cancer patients with symptomatic VTE, tinzaparin lowered the risk of recurrent VTE compared with warfarin, with a significant reduction in symptomatic DVT and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. No difference in major bleeding or overall mortality was observed. Figure. Cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE in the tinzaparin and warfarin groups. Figure. Cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE in the tinzaparin and warfarin groups. Disclosures Lee: Bayer: Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other; Eisai: Research Funding; LEO Pharma: Advisory Boards Other; Pfizer: Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other; Avivia: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Kamphuisen:LEO Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Meyer:Bayer: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; LEO Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding. Janas:LEO Pharma: Employment. Jarner:LEO Pharma: Employment. Khorana:LEO Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,021

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→