Cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) is associated with a high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolic (VTE) events that require extended anticoagulation in patients with active cancer, putting them... Show moreCancer-associated thrombosis (CT) is associated with a high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolic (VTE) events that require extended anticoagulation in patients with active cancer, putting them at risk of bleeding. The aim of the API-CAT study (NCT03692065) is to assess whether a reduced-dose regimen of apixaban (2.5mg twice daily [bid]) is noninferior to a full-dose regimen of apixaban (5mg bid) for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with active cancer who have completed >= 6 months of anticoagulant therapy for a documented index event of proximal deep-vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. API-CAT is an international, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, noninferiority trial with blinded adjudication of outcome events. Consecutive patients are randomized to receive apixaban 2.5 or 5mg bid for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome is a composite of recurrent symptomatic or incidental VTE during the treatment period. The principal safety endpoint is clinically relevant bleeding, defined as a composite of major bleeding or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding. Assuming a 12-month incidence of the primary outcome of 4% with apixaban and an upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio <2.0, 1,722 patients will be randomized, assuming an up to 10% loss in total patient-years (beta=80%; alpha one-sided=0.025). This trial has the potential to demonstrate that a regimen of extended treatment for patients with CT beyond an initial 6 months, with a reduced apixaban dose, has an acceptable risk of recurrent VTE recurrence and decreases the risk of bleeding. Show less
Aims The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment... Show moreAims The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment.Methods and results Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm.Conclusions For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
