Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Long-term daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin has been standard treatment for such patients. The purpose of this study was to assess if an oral factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, would offer an alternative treatment for VTE in patients with cancer. Patient and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, pilot trial in the United Kingdom, patients with active cancer who had symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), incidental PE, or symptomatic lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recruited. Allocation was to dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1, then 150 IU/kg daily for months 2-6) or rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, then 20 mg once daily for a total of 6 months). The primary outcome was VTE recurrence over 6 months. Safety was assessed by major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB). A sample size of 400 patients would provide estimates of VTE recurrence to within ± 4.5%, assuming a VTE recurrence rate at 6 months of 10%. Results: A total of 203 patients were randomly assigned to each group, 58% of whom had metastases. Twenty-six patients experienced recurrent VTE (dalteparin, n = 18; rivaroxaban, n = 8). The 6-month cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 11% (95% CI, 7% to 16%) with dalteparin and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) with rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.99). The 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding was 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for dalteparin and 6% (95% CI, 3% to 11%) for rivaroxaban (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.96). Corresponding rates of CRNMB were 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) and 13% (95% CI, 9% to 19%), respectively (HR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.69). Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was associated with relatively low VTE recurrence but higher CRNMB compared with dalteparin.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Concern about the use of epinephrine as a treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation to call for a placebo-controlled trial to determine whether the use of epinephrine is safe and effective in such patients.