Persistently elevated antiphospholipid antibodies and positive lupus anticoagulant (LAC) are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. The objective of this study was to explore whether antiphospholipid antibody and/or LAC positivity were associated with the traditional risk factors for thrombosis or with medication use in patients without autoimmune diseases hospitalised with arterial or venous thrombosis.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingMontefiore Medical Center, a large urban tertiary care centre.

Patients : 270 patients (93 with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), and 177 with non-haemorrhagic stroke (cerebrovascular accident (CVA)) admitted between January 2006 and December 2010 with a discharge diagnosis of either DVT, PE or CVA, who had LAC and antiphospholipid antibodies measured within 6 months from their index admission. Patients with lupus or antiphospholipid syndrome were excluded.

Main Outcome Measures : The main dependent variable was antiphospholipid antibodies of 40 units or greater (antiphospholipid antibody positivity) and/or LAC positivity. Independent variables were traditional thrombosis risk factors, statin use, aspirin use and warfarin use.

Results : 31 (11%) patients were LAC positive and/or antiphospholipid antibody positive. None of the traditional risk factors at the time of DVT/PE/CVA was associated with antiphospholipid antibody positivity. Current statin use was associated with an OR of 3.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 7.9, p=0.01) of antiphospholipid antibody positivity, adjusted for age, ethnicity and gender. Aspirin or warfarin use was not associated with antiphospholipid antibody levels.

Conclusion : If statin therapy reflects the history of previous hyperlipidaemia, high levels of antiphospholipid antibodies may be a marker for earlier endothelial damage caused by hyperlipidaemia.

Acute pulmonary embolism is a common complication in hospitalized patients, spanning multiple patient populations and crossing various therapeutic disciplines. Due to the heterogeneous clinical manifestations, the selection of management strategies for patients with acute pulmonary embolism is a challenge for clinicians, and a nuanced understanding of the relevant literature is required.

Previous studies that evaluated thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism are limited and controversial. Thus, we sought to identify the clinical controversies related to thrombolytic therapy in acute pulmonary embolism and reviewed the recent literature that impacts clinical practice.

To apply these controversies into daily clinical practice and decision making, we provide an overview of risk stratification and assessment of pulmonary embolism. Specific areas of controversies that are discussed relate to the impact of thrombolytic therapy on outcomes, specifically in submassive pulmonary embolism, including mortality, composite primary end points, and intensive care unit length of stay. Other controversies relate to the impact of the patient's sex on outcomes, the most safe and effective thrombolytic dose, optimal administration techniques including infusion duration or concurrent anticoagulation, and therapeutic strategies when thrombolytic therapy is unsuccessful.

Despite published guidelines and review articles, select aspects of thrombolytic therapy for the management of pulmonary embolism remain controversial; therefore, clinical practice varies from institution to institution and from practitioner to practitioner. When making decisions about the role of thrombolytic therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism, clinicians must be knowledgeable about areas with limited evidence and the therapy's associated risks.

In every situation, practitioners must consider the trajectory of the patient's status and the ability to intervene in an appropriate time frame.

Therapeutic options for patients with relapsed, chemo-resistant small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) are limited. Since paclitaxel has demonstrated single-agent activity in the second-line setting of SCLC and angiogenesis seems to play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease, a phase II trial was conducted in order to evaluate the efficacy and the tolerance of their combination in patients with relapsed, chemo-resistant SCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 who experienced relapse within 3 months after completion of 1st line chemotherapy for SCLC were eligible. Patients were treated with paclitaxel (90mg/m(2), days 1, 8 and 15) along with bevacizumab (10mg per kg of body weight, days 1 and 15) in cycles of 28 days.

RESULTS: Thirty patients (male/female: 27/3) with a median age of 64 years and ECOG performance status 0/1/2: 2/25/3 were enrolled. Nineteen patients (63.3%) had received at least two lines of prior treatment, 17 (56.7%) had undergone prior radiotherapy and nine (30%) had brain metastases at the time of study entry. The overall objective response rate was 20% (95% CI: 5.69-34.31%), including one complete remission, whereas the disease control rate was 36.7%. The median duration of response was 2.5months (range, 1.5-5.7), the median progression-free survival 2.7 months (range, 0.5-9.2) and the median overall survival 6.3 months (range, 0.5-17.9). Grades 3 and 4 toxicities were limited in neutropenia, diarrhea and fatigue. There was one case of non-fatal pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS: The combination of paclitaxel with bevacizumab was feasible and active in this poor prognosis and heavily pretreated population of patients with advanced, chemoresistant SCLC, representing a valid therapeutic alternative which merits further evaluation.

Although pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) share many risk factors, it is uncertain whether thrombophilic abnormalities may impact differently on the development of these two clinical manifestations of venous thromboembolism (VTE). To give further insight into this issue, we estimated the association of PE with different types of thrombophilia and evaluated whether these abnormalities have a different prevalence in patients presenting with PE, alone or associated with DVT, as compared with those with isolated DVT.

In this study 443 consecutive patients with a first episode of VTE and 304 matched healthy controls underwent laboratory screening for thrombophilia, including natural anticoagulants, factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A polymorphisms, antiphospholipid antibodies, homocysteine, factor VIII, and lipoprotein(a). Of the 443 patients, 224 patients had isolated DVT, 144 had combined DVT/PE, and 75 had isolated PE. At least one thrombophilic abnormality was detected in 72.8% of DVT, 66% of DVT/EP, and 60% of isolated PE patients. A high prevalence of hyperhomocysteinemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) levels was found in all patients with no significant differences among the three groups. The prevalence of prothrombin G20210A polymorphism and of elevated factor VIII levels was significantly higher in patients with DVT and DVT/PE than in controls, but not in those with isolated PE, whereas factor V Leiden polymorphism was associated with isolated DVT but not with DVT/PE or isolated PE.

In conclusion, the thrombophilic burden seems different in isolated PE versus DVT with or without PE, suggesting that PE may encompass a different pathophysiological process of thrombosis to DVT.