4.4 Article

Multiple Myeloma, Venous Thromboembolism, and Treatment-Related Risk of Thrombosis

期刊

SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 209-219

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1273085

关键词

Multiple myeloma (MM); deep vein thrombosis (DVT); thalidomide; lenalidomide; venous thromboembolism (VTE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a disease with a high prevalence in elderly people, affecting > 5% of the population > 65 years of age. Cancer patients have a 4.3-fold higher incidence of thrombotic complications, due to multiple risk factors that are not always related to the disease. Among hematologic malignancies, multiple myeloma (MM) confers a high risk of developing such complications, with a VTE rate of nearly 10%. Multiple factors are involved in MM-related VTE, such as increased blood viscosity, high levels of immunoglobulin, procoagulant activity of monoclonal protein, and inflammatory cytokines. Since the introduction of the immunomodulatory derivatives (IMiDs) thalidomide and lenalidomide in the therapeutic armamentarium of MM, VTE has emerged as one of the leading complications, in particular in patients with newly diagnosed MM. In this setting, IMiDs-based treatments are associated with rates of VTE reaching values up to 14 to 26%, particularly when dexamethasone or chemotherapy are added. The optimal prophylaxis for patients receiving these antiangiogenetic agents is still a matter of debate. Due to the lack of prospective randomized clinical trials, different studies have used various anticoagulant prophylaxes, including fixed low-dose warfarin (1 mg or 1.25 mg), therapeutic doses of warfarin (international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 3.0), low molecular weight heparin, or low-dose aspirin. As yet, no study has clearly demonstrated a significant superiority of one prophylactic regimen in comparison with the others. Further investigation and more randomized clinical trials are needed to define the best thromboprophylaxis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据