Search

Rivaroxaban is non-inferior to warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, with regard to clinical efficacy and safety. The ex-vivo effects of warfarin versus therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on in-vivo markers of coagulation activation and thrombin generation remain undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of warfarin and therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on ex-vivo thrombin generation (TG), and the in-vivo markers of coagulation activation, prothrombin fragment 1.2 (F1.2), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), and D-dimer. Methods Eighty-five patients with venous thromboembolism were studied, 45 on warfarin, target INR 2.5 and 40 on rivaroxaban 20mg once daily. Results Anticoagulation was in therapeutic range in 71% (32/45) warfarin and 65% (26/40) rivaroxaban treated patients. 8 patients on warfarin and 9 patients on rivaroxaban had subtherapeutic INR and rivaroxaban levels respectively. Both rivaroxaban and warfarin reduced endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) and peak thrombin, and prolonged lag time and time to peak, compared to normal controls (p<0.0001). The lag time and time to peak TG were longer, and peak thrombin was lower in patients receiving rivaroxaban (p<0.0001) compared with warfarin, although warfarin-treated patients had lower ETP (p=0.0008). In-vivo coagulation activation markers were within the normal ranges in all rivaroxaban-treated patients (including those with levels considered to be subtherapeutic) and in 37/45 warfarin-treated patients who had an INR ≥ 2.0. The warfarin-treated patients with subtherapeutic INRs exhibited slightly raised F1.2 and/or TAT. Conclusion In conclusion, both rivaroxaban and warfarin provided effective anticoagulation, as assessed by inhibition of TG and makers of in-vivo coagulation activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) studies were utilized to determine the efficacy and tolerability of paclitaxel (Taxol) in older patients with metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods: CALGB 9840 evaluated weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) versus paclitaxel every 3 weeks (175 mg/m2); CALGB 9342 evaluated three doses of paclitaxel as follows: 175, 210 and 250 mg/m2 each over 3 h every 3 weeks. Of the 1048 patients, paclitaxel was used first line in 57%. The groups: (i) <55 years (45%), (ii) 55–64 years (29%), and (iii) ≥65 years (26%). Results: Tumor response was also similar among age groups. First-line therapy (P = 0.0001) and better performance status (PS) (P = 0.018) were significantly related to higher response. Age did not significantly relate to overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). First-line therapy, better PS, estrogen receptor positive status and a fewer number of metastatic sites were significantly related to improved OS and PFS. The grade ≥3 toxic effects that increased linearly with age were leucopenia (P = 0.0099), granulocytopenia (P = 0.022), anorexia (P = 0.028), bilirubin elevation (P = 0.0035) and neurotoxicity (P < 0.0001). Patients over 65 years receiving second-line therapy had the shortest time to neurotoxicity. Conclusions: Older women with breast cancer derive similar efficacy from treatment with paclitaxel as younger women. Older women are at increased risk for specific toxic effects. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]