ASH Clinical News ACN_4.13_full issue_Web | Page 46

Literature Scan hormonal contraception: • use within 3 to 6 months prior to pregnancy: HR=1.38 (95% CI 1.03- 1.85; p=0.031) • use within 6 to 12 months prior to pregnancy: HR=1.22 (95% CI 0.90- 1.65; p=0.159) • use more than 1 year prior to pregnancy: HR=1.24 (95% CI 0.96- 1.60; p=0.108) The unadjusted incidence of leukemia was 4.33 cases per 100,000 person-years for no maternal hormonal contraception use and 6.45 for recent use. These incidence rates translated to approximately one additional leukemia case per 47,170 exposed chil- dren, or approximately 25 leukemia cases during the study follow-up period. Limitations of the study include the possibility that some women may not have used the prescribed contraceptives or used them at a different time, which may have led to a misclassification of exposure. The authors also acknowl- edged missing information, like expo- sure to radiation in utero and perinatal infections, that may have confounded the study’s findings. “Further large, valid studies with registry-based information of hormonal contraception and childhood cancer – including a substantially larger study cohort and more cases – will help to either firmly establish or refute the pos- sible link between prenatal exposure to sex hormones and the risk of childhood cancer,” Dr. Hargreave added. She noted that her team is conduct- ing a similar study that will include a total of four Nordic countries with “[Further research] will help to either firmly establish or rebuke the possible link between prenatal exposure to sex hormones and the risk of childhood cancer.” —MARIE HARGREAVE, PhD “The results were almost unchanged when sex and perinatal factors were included in the analyses, when children with unknown or other leukemia were excluded, [and] when children with Down syndrome were excluded,” the authors reported. However, after adjustment for maternal smoking, the association with childhood leukemia was no longer statistically significant, suggesting that maternal smoking status may also play a role in the risk of childhood leukemia. Previous and recent use of combined oral products (estrogen and progestin) increased the risk of any type of leukemia, compared with no use, but no specific type of hor- monal contraception was associated with an increased risk for lymphoid leukemia. registry-based data on maternal use of contraception and childhood cancer. “We are exploring the risk of other childhood cancer types with respect to maternal hormonal contraception and with respect to different types of fertil- ity drugs, as we previously found an increased risk of leukemia and neuro- blastomas in children born to women after fertility treatments involving the steroid hormone progesterone,” she said. Corresponding authors reported fi- nancial relationships with Jazz Pharma- ceuticals and Shire. REFERENCE Hargreave M, Mørch LS, Andersen KK, et al. Maternal use of hormonal contraception and risk of childhood leukaemia: a nationwide, population- based cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018 September 6. [Epub ahead of print] Risk of Childhood Leukemia According to Maternal Hormonal Contraception Use Rivaroxaban Fails to Prevent VTE and VTE-Related Mortality After Hospital Discharge Patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness are at an increased risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the six weeks after discharge, but treatment with rivaroxaban after discharge did not reduce VTE or VTE-related mortality risk, according to results from a placebo-controlled study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “The role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is un- clear, as it has shown either excess bleeding or beneficial effects mainly from reducing asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT),” lead author Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health in Chicago, told ASH Clinical News. Although rivaroxaban did not appear to increase bleed- ing risk in this study, the authors noted, “the usefulness of extended thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain.” In the MARINER (Medically Ill Patient Assessment of Rivaroxaban versus Placebo in Reducing Post-Discharge Venous Thrombo-Embolism Risk) trial, researchers enrolled 12,019 patients (median age = 69.7 years; range not provided) who had been hospitalized for three to 10 consecutive days with heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, stroke, or infectious or inflammatory disease. All participants were required to have risk factors for VTE (de- fined as a score of ≥4 on the 10-point modified IMPROVE model) and to have previously received low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin during their hospital stay. On the day of hospital discharge, investigators randomized patients to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban 10 mg (n=6,007) or placebo (n=6,012) for a total of 45 days. Patients with renal insuffi- ciency received a lower dose of rivaroxaban (7.5 mg). “The role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is unclear, as it has shown either excess bleeding or beneficial effects.” —ALEX C. SPYROPOULOS, MD TABLE 1. Any Leukemia Hazard ratio p Value Lymphoid Leukemia Hazard ratio p Value Hazard ratio p Value No use 1.00 (reference) Previous use 1.25 (1.01–1.55) 0.039 1.23 (0.97–1.57) 0.089 1.33 (0.83–2.11) 0.232 Recent use 1.46 (1.09–1.96) 0.011 1.27 (0.90–1.80) 0.167 2.17 (1.22–3.87) 0.008 ≤3 months of pregnancy 1.42 (1.05–1.93) 0.025 1.28 (0.90–1.83) 0.173 1.95 (1.05–3.60) 0.033 During pregnancy 1.78 (0.95–3.31) 0.070 1.22 (0.53–2.81) 0.635 3.87 (1.48–10.15) 0.006 44 ASH Clinical News 1.00 (reference) Nonlymphoid Leukemia 1.00 (reference) During the 45-day follow-up, the authors observed fewer instances of symptomatic VTE with rivaroxaban than with placebo, but there was no significant difference in the rates of the composite endpoint of symptomatic VTE (including DVT and nonfatal pulmonary embolism) or VTE-related mortality: 0.83 percent for rivaroxaban and 1.10 per- cent for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% CI 0.52-1.09; p=0.14). Rates of VTE-related mortality (secondary endpoint) were also similar between the two treatment groups: 0.72 percent for rivar- oxaban and 0.77 percent for placebo (HR=0.93; 95% CI 0.62-1.42; p value not provided). Rates of other efficacy outcomes are presented in TABLE 2 . In addition, there were no significant differences between the rivaroxaban and placebo groups in the safety analyses (p values November 2018