Scores to predict major bleeding risk during oral anticoagulation therapy: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores may help physicians to better assess the individual risk/benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of 7 clinical prediction scores for major bleeding events during oral anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We followed 515 adult patients taking oral anticoagulants to measure the first major bleeding event over a 12-month follow-up period. The performance of each score to predict the risk of major bleeding and the physician's subjective assessment of bleeding risk were compared with the C statistic. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of a first major bleeding event during follow-up was 6.8% (35/515). According to the 7 scoring systems, the proportions of major bleeding ranged from 3.0% to 5.7% for low-risk, 6.7% to 9.9% for intermediate-risk, and 7.4% to 15.4% for high-risk patients. The overall predictive accuracy of the scores was poor, with the C statistic ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 and not significantly different from each other (P=.84). Only the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score performed slightly better than would be expected by chance (C statistic, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.70). The performance of the scores was not statistically better than physicians' subjective risk assessments (C statistic, 0.55; P=.94). CONCLUSION: The performance of 7 clinical scoring systems in predicting major bleeding events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy was poor and not better than physicians' subjective assessments.

Oral cancer treatments and adherence: medication event monitoring system assessment for capecitabine

Background: Oncological treatments are traditionally administered via intravenous injection by qualified personnel. Oral formulas which are developing rapidly are preferred by patients and facilitate administration however they may increase non-adherence. In this study 4 common oral chemotherapeutics are given to 50 patients, who are still in the process of inclusion, divided into 4 groups. The aim is to evaluate adherence and offer these patients interdisciplinary support with the joint help of doctors and pharmacists. We present here the results for capecitabine. Materials and Methods: The final goal is to evaluate adhesion in 50 patients split into 4 groups according to oral treatments (letrozole/exemestane, imatinib/sunitinib, capecitabine and temozolomide) using persistence and quality of execution as parameters. These parameters are evaluated using a medication event monitoring system (MEMS®) in addition to routine oncological visits and semi-structured interviews. Patients were monitored for the entire duration of treatment up to a maximum of 1 year. Patient satisfaction was assessed at the end of the monitoring period using a standardized questionary. Results: Capecitabine group included 2 women and 8 men with a median age of 55 years (range: 36−77 years) monitored for an average duration of 100 days (range: 5-210 days). Persistence was 98% and quality of execution 95%. 5 patients underwent cyclic treatment (2 out of 3 weeks) and 5 patients continuous treatment. Toxicities higher than grade 1 were grade 2−3 hand-foot syndrome in 1 patient and grade 3 acute coronary syndrome in 1 patient both without impact on adherence. Patients were satisfied with the interviews undergone during the study (57% useful, 28% very useful, 15% useless) and successfully integrated the MEMS® in their daily lives (57% very easily, 43% easily) according to the results obtained by questionary at the end of the monitoring period. Conclusion: Persistence and quality of execution observed in our Capecitabine group of patients were excellent and better than expected compared to previously published studies. The interdisciplinary approach allowed us to better identify and help patients with toxicities to maintain adherence. Overall patients were satisfied with the global interdisciplinary follow-up. With longer follow up better evaluation of our method and its impact will be possible. Interpretation of the results of patients in the other groups of this ongoing trial will provide us information for a more detailed analysis.