Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27206325›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with epoetins or blood transfusions.

Antonios Douros, Kathrin Jobski, Bianca Kollhorst, Tania Schink, Edeltraut Garbe

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Antonios DourosClinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Kathrin JobskiClinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Bianca KollhorstBiometry and Data Management, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Tania SchinkClinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Edeltraut GarbeClinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DEUniversity of Bremen · DEZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAnaemia is common in cancer patients, with treatments including epoetins and blood transfusions. Although an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been associated with both therapeutics, studies comparing the risk of VTE between epoetins and transfusions in cancer patients are lacking.

methodsA nested case-control study investigated this risk using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database. Cohort members were incident cancer patients receiving first time treatment with epoetin or transfusion. A subcohort including only patients receiving chemotherapy was created, since the formally approved indication of epoetins is chemotherapy-induced anaemia. Cases were defined as patients developing VTE. For each case up to 10 gender- and age-matched controls were selected from the cohort. Multiple confounder adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for VTE and recent treatment with epoetins or transfusions (last 28 days before index date) compared with past anti-anaemic treatment were calculated by conditional logistic regression.

resultsAmong 69 888 patients receiving first time treatment with epoetin or transfusion, 3316 VTE cases were identified. The aOR for VTE was 1.31 (95% CI 1.03, 1.65) for epoetins, 2.33 (95% CI 2.03, 2.66) for transfusions, and 2.24 (95% CI 1.34, 3.77) for epoetins and transfusions. Sensitivity analyses with a stricter VTE definition or an expanded time window yielded similar results. In the chemotherapy only subcohort the risk difference between epoetins and transfusions could not be verified (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10, 1.98 vs. aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.49, 2.19). Our study confirmed known VTE risk factors including previous VTE (aOR 14.76, 95% CI 12.79, 17.03) or surgery (aOR 1.83, 95% CI 1.67, 2.01). Epoetin-associated risk decreased after a safety warning by the European Medicines Agency setting maximum haemoglobin target values to 12 g dl(-1) .

conclusionsTransfusions could be associated with a higher VTE risk than epoetins in cancer patients. Moreover, current prescribing patterns may have decreased the VTE risk for epoetins.

Indexed as

Transfusion ReactionAgedCase-Control StudiesCombined Modality TherapyErythropoietinFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsRisk FactorsVenous ThromboembolismEPO protein, humanErythropoietinantianaemic treatmentcase-control studydrug safetyerythropoietin

Identifiers

PMID27206325
PMCPMC5338129
OpenAlexW2398244789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.