Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. Efficacy of oral anticoagulants compared with aspirin after infrainguinal bypass surgery (The Dutch Bypass Oral Anticoagulants or Aspirin Study): a randomised trial. Anticoagulant therapy in deep venous thrombosis. A randomized controlled study. Low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus oral anticoagulant therapy (acenocoumarol) in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis in the elderly: a randomized trial. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of diclofenac/misoprostol in Alzheimer's disease. Comparison of oral anticoagulant control by a nurse-practitioner using a computer decision-support system with that by clinicians. A group randomized trial to improve safe use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. An open-label randomized controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin compared to heparin and coumadin for the treatment of venous thromboembolic events in children: the REVIVE trial. Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients.
This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of antiplatelet and moderate-intensity anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation associated with recognized risk factors or mitral stenosis.
                Warfarin was more effective than aspirin in preventing stroke in these patients; combined therapy with low anticoagulant intensity was ineffective. Mitral stenosis patients were not investigated.
                We performed a multicenter randomized trial in 1,209 patients at risk. The intermediate-risk group included patients with risk factors or age >60 years: 242 received the cyclooxygenase inhibitor triflusal, 237 received acenocumarol, and 235 received a combination of both. The high-risk group included patients with prior embolism or mitral stenosis: 259 received anticoagulants and 236 received the combined therapy. Median follow-up was 2.76 years. Primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal stroke or systemic embolism.
                Primary outcome was lower in the combined therapy than in the anticoagulant arm in both the intermediate- (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI)0.12 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) and the high-risk group (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.96]; p = 0.03). Primary outcome plus severe bleeding was lower with combined therapy in the intermediate-risk group. Nonvalvular and mitral stenosis patients had similar embolic event rates during anticoagulant therapy.
                The combined antiplatelet plus moderate-intensity anticoagulation therapy significantly decreased the vascular events compared with anticoagulation alone and proved to be safe in atrial fibrillation patients. Oral anticoagulants and aspirin are antithrombotic drugs that are commonly used in patients with vascular disease. We investigated whether either of these treatments prevented more effectively than the other bypass complications after infrainguinal bypass surgery.
                We did a multicentre, randomised, open trial. 2690 patients who had undergone infrainguinal grafting were randomly assigned oral anticoagulants (target international normalised ratio 3.0-4.5, n=1339) or aspirin (80 mg daily, n=1351). We followed up patients for a mean of 21 months. The primary outcome was graft occlusion.
                308 graft occlusions occurred in the oral-anticoagulants group compared with 322 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.82-1.11]), which suggested no overall advantage for either treatment. Oral anticoagulants were beneficial in patients with vein grafts (0.69 [0.54-0.88]), whereas aspirin had better results for nonvenous grafts (1.26 [1.03-1.55]). The composite outcome of vascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or amputation occurred 248 times in the oral-anticoagulants group and 275 times in the aspirin group (0.89 [0.75-1.06]). Patients treated with oral anticoagulants had more major bleeding episodes than those treated with aspirin (108 vs 56; 1.96 [1.42-2.71]).
                Oral anticoagulation was better for the prevention of infrainguinal-vein-graft occlusion and for lowering the rate of ischaemic events. Aspirin was better for the prevention of non-venous graft occlusion, and was associated with fewer bleeding episodes. Ninety patients with venographically proven deep venous thrombosis(DVT) but without clinical signs of pulmonary embolism(PE) were randomized into two different treatment regimens to compare the safety and efficacy of continuous intravenous heparin and oral anticoagulant(AC) treatment versus non-AC treatment. All patients in the two treatment groups were actively mobilized from the day of admission and wore graduated compressing stockings. In the non-AC-group the patients were treated with phenylbutazone for ten days. Treatment with heparin was maintained for 6 days and oral AC treatment was given from the third day and continued for 3 months. Venography was repeated after 30 days. A perfusion-ventilation lung scan was performed on day 1-2, 10 and 60. In fifty-nine patients a revenography was performed, twenty nine in the AC-group and thirty in the non-AC group. For distal veins regression was found in nine and eight respectively (4.4% in favour of AC, 95% confidence limit 27.5% to -18.7%) and in proximal veins regression was found in five and eight, respectively (10.9% in favour of AC, 95% confidence limit 32.0% to -10.1%). No difference in lung scans was found after 10 days (0.8% in favour of AC, 95% confidence limit 21.5% to -19.9%) or after 60 days (3.3% in favour of non-AC treatment, 95% confidence limit 21.8% to -28.5%). In the AC group the incidence of bleeding complications was 8.3%. No side-effects of phenylbutazone was found. The present controlled clinical study demonstrated no effect of AC-treatment on DVT progression in actively mobilized patients wearing graduated compressing stockings when compared to a non-AC treated group receiving analgetic therapy with phenylbutazone. However, the patient population of the study is relatively small with wide confidence intervals for differences between groups. Before more general recommendations can be made, a large scale placebo-controlled study is needed to evaluate the possible effect of AC-treatment in DVT patients, who can be mobilized from the first day. This study aims to establish the relative effectiveness and safety of low molecular weight heparin in elderly patients with venous thrombosis in order to find an alternative to oral anticoagulant therapy with less bleeding complications in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). One hundred consecutive elderly patients (>75 years old) with venographically demonstrated proximal DVT were included in a randomized trial. All patients were treated for ten days with adjusted doses of intravenous heparin. Informed consent was obtained and on the eight day, patients were randomly allocated to receive acenocoumarol (INR 2.0-3.0) or subcutaneous enoxaparin (4000 anti-Xa units once a day) for three months. All patients were followed-up clinically and venographically for a one year period. The results were analyzed with Fisher's exact test or chi-square test as appropriate. During the treatment and surveillance period, 6 of the 50 patients (12%) who received acenocoumarol and 8 of the 50 patients (16%) who received enoxaparin had new episodes of venous thromboembolism confirmed by objective testing (p = 0.6; 95% CI for the difference: -19.5 to 11.5). Hemorrhagic complications occurred in six of the 50 patients (12%) who received acenocoumarol and in one (2%) of those on enoxaparin (p = 0.1; 95% CI for the difference: -1.8 to 21.8). Vertebral fractures developed in 2 patients (4%) in the enoxaparin group (p = 0.5; 95% CI for the difference: -11.4 to 3.4). These results show that fixed dose enoxaparin seems to be effective and safe in the long-term treatment of proximal DVT in the elderly. In comparison with oral anticoagulants, the findings are inconclusive due to the wide confidence intervals for differences between outcomes, however they suggest that the former may have less bleeding complications with similar efficacy. Previous studies suggest a potential benefit from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Prescribing NSAIDs, however, carries the risk of significant gastrointestinal adverse events.
                To study whether treatment with an NSAID prevents expected decline in AD patients and evaluate whether co-administration of the gastro-protective agent, misoprostol, with an NSAID is safe in AD.
                The efficacy and safety of diclofenac in combination with misoprostol (D/M) was evaluated in 41 patients with mild-moderate AD in a prospective 25-week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy measures comprised the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive and noncognitive subsections, Global Deterioration Scale, Clinical Global Impression of Change, Mini-Mental State Examination, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Physical Self-Maintenance Scale, and a caregiver-rated Global Impression of Change.
                There were no group differences with any of the outcome measures in an intent-to-treat analysis. There were some nonsignificant trends for the placebo group to have deteriorated more than the D/M-treated patients. Withdrawal rates were 12 of 24 in the D/M group and 2 of 17 in the placebo group. There were no serious drug-related adverse events.
                This pilot study, with small treatment numbers, did not demonstrate a significant effect of NSAID treatment in AD, but the trends observed justify further investigations with a larger number of participants. D/M is safe in AD patients, but its tolerability is not optimal. With increasing work-loads in anticoagulant clinics different methods of service delivery need evaluation. The quality of anticoagulant control achieved by a nurse-practitioner using a computer decision-support system (CDSS) was compared with that achieved by trainee doctors without CDSS. Eighty-one out-patients (group A, therapeutic range 2-3) and 96 out-patients (group B, therapeutic range 3-4.5) were randomized to management by a nurse-practitioner or by trainee doctors (clinicians). Thirty-seven patients in group A and 50 patients in group B were randomized to be managed by the nurse-practitioner. In group A, patients in the nurse-practitioner group spent a longer time in the therapeutic range than those in the clinician group (60.7% compared with 51.6%). Dose suggestion acceptance in the nurse-practitioner group (88%) was higher compared with agreement between the CDSS and the clinicians (60%). In group B, patients in the clinician group spent a slightly longer time in the therapeutic range (70% compared with 67.6%). Acceptance of dose suggestion was lower in the nurse-practitioner group (67%) compared with agreement between the CDSS and the clinicians (73%). In conclusion, the CDSS can improve the quality of control of warfarin therapy by a nurse-practitioner over that by trainee doctors for the therapeutic range 2-3. Similar quality of control is achieved for the therapeutic range 3-4.5. The CDSS may be used by nurse-practitioners to achieve safe and effective anticoagulation in hospital-based or out-reach anticoagulant clinics. To determine whether audit/feedback and educational materials improve adherence to recommendations for laboratory monitoring and cytoprotective agents to detect and prevent adverse events caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs).
                Controlled, cluster-randomized trial.
                Physicians commonly prescribing NSAIDs were identified within a large managed care organization and randomized to a control or an intervention group (audit/feedback with peer-derived benchmarks and continuing medical education). Medical records were examined 10 months before and after the intervention for clinical data and receipt of complete blood count (CBC), creatinine testing, and cytoprotective agents (process measures). Primary analysis compared intervention versus control physicians among those who initially performed below a peer-derived benchmark. General estimating equations accounted for patient clustering.
                Of 101 physicians initially randomized, 85 remained eligible (38 internists, 36 family physicians, 11 rheumatologists) postintervention. Mean percent change in performance between intervention and control physicians for CBC monitoring was 16% versus 10%; for creatinine monitoring, 0% versus 17%; and use of cytoprotective agents, -3% versus -1%. None of these changes were significant. Rheumatology specialty, number of NSAID prescriptions and physician visits, and patient risk factors for NSAID-related toxicity were more strongly associated with improved safety practices than the intervention.
                Audit/feedback and educational materials had no observed effect on improving NSAID-related safety practices. Potentially contributing factors include high baseline performance (ceiling effect), dilution of the intervention effect by case mix and provider factors, nonreceipt of intervention materials, and diverse indications for lab tests. Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are serious complications in children and for which the standard of care, unfractionated heparin followed by oral anticoagulation (UFH/OA), is problematic. The objective of REVIVE was to compare the efficacy and safety of a low molecular weight heparin (reviparin-sodium) to UFH/OA for the treatment of VTE in children.
                This multicenter, open-label study, with blinded central outcome adjudication, randomized patients with objectively confirmed VTE to receive either reviparin-sodium or UFH/OA. Dose adjustments were made using nomograms. The efficacy outcome was based on recurrent VTE and death due to VTE during the 3-month treatment period. The safety outcomes were major bleeding, minor bleeding and death. Due to slow patient accrual, REVIVE was closed prematurely.
                At 3 months, with reviparin-sodium, 2/36 patients (5.6%) had recurrent VTE or death compared to 4/40 patients (10.0%) receiving UFH/OA (odds ratio=0.53; 95% CI=(0.05, 4.00); Fisher's exact test: 2P=0.677). There were 7 major bleeds, 2/36 (5.6%) in the reviparin-sodium group and 5/40 (12.5%) in UFH/OA group (odds ratio=0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.04, 2.76); Fisher's exact test: P=0.435). There were 5 deaths during the study period, 1 (2.8%) in the reviparin-sodium group and 4 (10.0%) in the UFH/OA group. All five deaths were unrelated to VTE but one was due to an intracranial hemorrhage in the UFH/OA group.
                Although limited by small sample size, REVIVE provides valuable information on the incidence of recurrent VTE, major bleeding and problematic issues associated with therapy of VTE in children. The extent of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with central vein catheters (CVC) in cancer patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in the prevention of VTE.
                In a multicenter, double-blind study, consecutive cancer patients scheduled for CVC insertion were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once a day or placebo. Treatment was started 2 hours before CVC insertion and continued for 6 weeks. The primary end points of the study were deep vein thrombosis (DVT), confirmed by venography of the CVC limb performed 6 weeks after randomization, or clinically overt pulmonary embolism, confirmed by objective testing during the study drug administration. Patients were assessed for bleeding complications.
                Three hundred eighty-five patients were randomized, of which 321 (83.4%) underwent venography. A venography was adequate for adjudication in 155 patients in each treatment group. A DVT was observed in 22 patients (14.1%) treated with enoxaparin and in 28 patients (18.0%) treated with placebo, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.31). No major bleeding occurred. Five patients (2.6%) in the enoxaparin group and two patients (1.0%) in the placebo group died during the treatment period.
                In this study, no difference in the rate of CVC-related VTE was detected between patients receiving enoxaparin and patients receiving placebo. The dose of enoxaparin used in this study proved to be safe. Clinical trials evaluating higher enoxaparin doses could optimize the efficacy of this agent for this indication.
The limited evidence from RCTs of anticoagulants versus NSAIDs or placebo is inconclusive regarding the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in VTE treatment. The use of anticoagulants is widely accepted in clinical practice, so a further RCT comparing anticoagulants to placebo could not ethically be carried out.