ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2023
Bleeding risk in patients with multiple myeloma treated for venous thromboembolism: a MarketScan analysis.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombotic utilization, adverse events, and associations with treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: pooled analysis of three clinical trials.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- Bleeding and Thrombosis in Multiple Myeloma: Platelets as Key Players during Cell Interactions and Potential Use as Drug Delivery Systems.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Thrombosis in multiple myeloma: risk stratification, antithrombotic prophylaxis, and management of acute events. A consensus-based position paper from anHaematologica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Thromboprophylaxis is thoroughly studied in MM. Contrarily, studies assessing the risk of bleeding in people with MM on anticoagulation are lacking. Objectives: To determine the rate of serious bleeding in patients with MM receiving anticoagulation for VTE and the clinical factors associated with bleeding risk. Methods: Using the MarketScan commercial database, we identified 1298 people with MM treated with anticoagulation for incident VTE events between 2011 and 2019. Hospitalized bleeding was identified using the Cunningham algorithm. Rates of bleeding were calculated and Cox regression identified risk factors for bleeding. Results: Bleeding occurred in 51 (3.9%) cases during median follow-up of 1.13 years. Rate of bleeding among patients with MM on anticoagulation was 24.0 per 1000 person-years. In adjusted regression, factors associated with increased bleeding included age (HR, 1.31 per 10-year increase; 95% CI, 1.03-1.65), Charlson comorbidity index (HR, 1.29 per SD increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.58), use of antiplatelet agents (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.03-5.68), diabetes (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.06-3.26), and renal disease (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16). Cumulative incidence of bleeding was 4.7%, 3.2%, and 3.4% for warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants, respectively. Conclusion: In this real-world analysis, the rate of bleeding in people with MM on anticoagulation was comparable to those in other subsets of cancer-related VTE. Bleeding rate was lower with low molecular weight heparin and direct oral anticoagulants than warfarin. Higher comorbidity index, diabetes, antiplatelet agent use, and renal disease were risk factors for serious bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.