Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics.

Background: The majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias. Objectives: In RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs? Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias. Results: Of the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes. Conclusion: There were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of splanchnic vein thrombosis - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is an uncommon manifestation of venous thromboembolism in the splanchnic venous system, with scarce evidence surrounding its management. We assessed the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), vitamin-k antagonists (VKAs), or no anticoagulation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary efficacy outcome being complete recanalization of affected vessels and primary safety outcome being major bleeding. Meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model, with dichotomous outcomes being synthesized with odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95 % CIs. RESULTS: Seven non-randomized and one randomized study involving 883 participants were included for analysis. DOACs were more effective than VKAs (OR = 4.33; 95 % CI: 2.4, 7.83; n = 1 study) in non-cirrhotic patients and no anticoagulation in cirrhotic patients (OR = 3.86; 95 % CI: 1.49, 10.03; n = 3 studies). DOACs had a statistically significant reduction in major bleeding compared to observation [OR = 0.09; 95 % CI: 0.03, 0.29; n = 3 studies], LMWHs [OR = 0.13; 95 % CI: 0.03, 0.29; n = 1 study] and VKAs [OR = 0.12; 95 % CI: 0.02, 0.69; n = 2 studies] in non-cirrhotic patients. No difference in major bleeding was found between DOACs and observation, LMWH, or VKAs in cirrhotic patients. CONCLUSION: DOACs appear to be a favorable alternative to VKAs and LMWHs in non-cirrhotic patients. This avenue of research would benefit from larger studies that adjust for SVT etiologies, patient risk factors, and overall bleeding risk.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and tumor lysis syndrome in hematologic malignancies: A systemic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for hematologic malignancies include therapies that target tyrosine kinase (TK) signaling pathways. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an oncologic emergency that can occur due to rapid turnover following the initiation of treatments for hematologic malignancy. The incidence of TLS is under-reported and it is unclear as to whether TK inhibitors (TKIs) are associated with TLS. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to determine the incidence of TLS with TKIs. METHODS: A search was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases, as well as a manual search of the American Society of Hematology and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. Keywords included: "tumor lysis syndrome," "tyrosine kinase inhibitors," "lymphoma," and "leukemia." RESULTS: We identified a total of 57 publications that commented on the incidence of TLS with TKIs for hematologic malignancy. Thirty-nine of those publications reported TLS as an adverse event. TLS was described as an adverse event among essentially all the subclasses of TKIs that are used to manage hematologic malignancies. CONCLUSION: The overall number of articles commenting on TLS as an adverse event is sparse and there needs to be more transparency regarding the incidence of TLS when employing newer targeted therapies. Physicians should consider the risk of TLS on an individual basis and the added risk of TLS when using TKIs to treat hematologic malignancy.

Quality of early evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of COVID-19.

Since the initial description of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and its declaration as a worldwide pandemic, the number of publications on the novel virus has increased rapidly. We studied the trends and quality of evidence in early SARS-CoV-2 publications. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed for papers published between 1 January 2020 and 21 April 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility in this systematic review. The search yielded 2504 citations published between January and February 2020 or an unspecified date, 109 of which remained for extraction after screening. Data extracted included study design, year of publication, country of basis, journal of publication, impact factor of publishing journal, study sample size, number of citations and topic of investigation. Study design-specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate the scientific rigour of all included papers: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used for case series, Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles scale for narrative reviews, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews. The overall quality of the literature was low-moderate. Of 541 papers that reported clinical characteristics, 295 were commentaries/expert opinions and 36 were case reports. There were no randomised clinical trials, 45 case series studies, 58 narrative reviews, 1 cohort study and 5 systematic reviews. We encourage clinicians to be attentive to these findings when utilising early SARS-CoV-2 evidence in their practices.

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on direct oral anticoagulants in the past 5 years.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have been reported with increasing frequency as a means of collating studies which may have been performed over different period of times, in different geographical areas and by different groups of investigators. As SRs have become more common, quality metrics such as Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) have become available for these reviews. AMSTAR is an 11-point checklist that assesses the methodological and reporting quality of a SR. In clinical practice, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly used for the treatment and prevention of both venous and arterial thromboembolism. We sought to evaluate the quality of SRs published on DOACs using the AMSTAR criteria. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 to February 2019 was performed. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility. Data extraction was also completed in duplicate. Categories of extracted data included AMSTAR rating, journal of publication, year of publication, number of studies included in the SR, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of times the paper was cited and journal impact factor. A total of 3729 articles were identified, of which 250 were eligible for analysis. SR quality was highly variable with mean (SD) AMSTAR score of 5.68/11 (2.21). Reporting adherence to PRISMA guideline correlated with a moderate (5-8) or high quality (9-11) (OR=4.19, p<0.01) AMSTAR score. The methodological quality of DOACs was generally rated to be low-moderate, and improved adherence to AMSTAR methodological practices are strongly recommended.