Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery for venous thromboembolic events (VTE) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in these patients.

Materials and methods

A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science was carried out and included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compared DOACs with LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in patients after cancer surgery through July 25, 2023. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) within 30 days of surgery. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445386).

Results

We retrieved 5149articles, selected 27 for eligibility, and included 10 studies (three RCTs and seven observational studies) encompassing 3054 patients who underwent postoperative thromboprophylaxis with DOACs (41%) or LMWH (59%). Compared to LMWH thromboprophylaxis, DOACs had a comparable risk of VTE (RR:0.69[95% CI:0.46-1.02], I² = 0%), major bleeding (RR:1.55 [95% CI:0.82-2.93], I² = 2%), and CRNMB (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.4-1.98], I² = 31%) during the 30-day postoperative period. Subgroup analysis of VTE and major bleeding suggested no differences according to study type, extended thromboprophylaxis, tumor types, or different types of DOAC.

Conclusion

DOACs are potentially effective alternatives to LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer surgery, without increasing the risk of major bleeding events.

SUBMITTER: Zhou H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10895850 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhou Hong H Chen Ting-Ting TT Ye Ling-Ling LL Ma Jun-Jie JJ Zhang Jin-Hua JH

World journal of surgical oncology 20240226 1

<h4>Background</h4>Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery for venous thromboembolic events (VTE) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in these patients.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science was carried out and included all randomized controlle ...[more]

PMID: 38403630

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveCancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAVTE) is a preventable, life-threatening complication with a considerable morbidity and mortality. Primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is currently recommended; however, the health and economic benefits have not been evaluated and compared in China. This study aimed to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulants in primary CAVTE prevention among cancer patients in China.MethodsA Markov model with a 5-year horizon was established to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and no prevention in primary prophylaxis of CAVTE in China. Key clinical outcomes were obtained from the available clinical trials, comparing DOACs (rivaroxaban and apixaban) with LMWHs or with no thromboprophylaxis. Utility and the cost inputs were all obtained from the published literature or local data with public sources. The total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated as the main endpoints of the modal for each strategy. The assessment of uncertainty was performed involving deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Impact of time horizon, generic drug price, and individual DOACs were assessed in scenario and subgroup analyses.ResultsPrimary prophylaxis using DOACs were projected to yield 1.866 QALYs at a cost of $3,287.893, resulting in the ICERs of $12,895.851 (DOACs vs. no-thromboprophylaxis) and $43,613.184/QALYs (LMWHs vs. DOACs). Sensitivity analysis revealed that ICER was sensitive to the VTE and bleeding risk, drug cost of anticoagulants, self-payment ratio, and overall death rate of cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that DOACs and LMWHs had a 48% and 45% probability of being cost-effective at a 5-year time horizon, respectively. When the time horizon extended to 10 years, DOACs achieved a cost-effective probability of 43%. Among individual DOACs, apixaban was found to be the preferred strategy in VTE prevention due to its incremental health gain with an acceptable cost increase.ConclusionPrimary thromboprophylaxis with DOACs was cost-effective in cancer patients at a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,125.24/QALY in China. Cancer death rate, risk of VTE and major bleeding, and the drug cost assumed greater relevance and importance in the decision-making process for primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are scarce and inconclusive in patients who are receiving dialysis, for whom DOAC are not labelled in Europe. In a French nationwide registry study of patients on chronic dialysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of off-label DOAC use vs approved vitamin K antagonist (VKA).MethodsData on patients on dialysis were extracted from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry and merged with data from the French national healthcare system database (Système National des Données de Santé, SNDS). Patients on dialysis who had initiated treatment with an oral anticoagulant between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020, were eligible for inclusion. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of major bleeding events and the primary effectiveness outcome was the occurrence of thrombotic events. Using propensity score-weighted cause-specific Cox regression, we compared the safety and effectiveness outcomes for DOAC and VKA.ResultsA total of 8954 patients received an oral anticoagulant (483 DOAC and 8471 VKA) for the first time after the initiation of dialysis. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 1.7 (0.8-3.2) years, 2567 patients presented a first thromboembolic event and 1254 patients had a bleeding event. After propensity score adjustment, the risk of a thromboembolic event was significantly lower in patients treated with a DOAC than in patients treated with a VKA {weighted hazard ratio (wHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.66 (0.46; 0.94)}. A non-significant trend toward a lower risk of major bleeding events was found in DOAC-treated patients, relative to VKA-treated patients [wHR (95% CI) 0.68 (0.41; 1.12)]. The results were consistent across subgroups and in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIn a large group of dialysis patients initiating an oral anticoagulant, the off-label use of DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of thromboembolic events and a non-significantly lower risk of bleeding, relative to VKA use. This provides reassurance regarding the off-label use of DOACs in people on dialysis.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal cancer (GICA) is associated with a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to other solid tumors, moreover, recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) complications during anticoagulation treatment have an associated increase rate. GICA-VTE remains a challenging clinical scenario with MB concerns for utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), especially with active cancer therapies.AimTo evaluate patient risk factors, effectiveness (VTE) and safety (MB) of DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with active GICA-VTE.MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients receiving DOACs and LMWH with GICA and symptomatic or incidental VTE treated at comprehensive cancer center from November 2013 to February 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included active GI cancer diagnosed at any stage or treatment +/- 6 mo of VTE diagnosis, whom were prescribed 6 mo or more of DOACs or LMWH. The Chi-squared test was used for overall and the Fisher exact test for pairwise comparisons of the proportions of patients experiencing recurrent VTE and MB events. Odds ratios were used to compare the relative odds of the occurrence of the outcome given exposure to the risk factor.ResultsA total of 144 patients were prescribed anticoagulation, in which 106 fulfilled inclusion criteria apixaban (27.3%), rivaroxaban (34.9%) and enoxaparin (37.7%), and 38 were excluded. Patients median age was 66.5 years at GICA diagnosis and 67 years at CAVTE event, with 62% males, 80% Caucasian, 70% stage IV, pancreatic cancer (40.5%), 30% Khorana Score (≥ 3 points), and 43.5% on active chemotherapy. Sixty-four percent of patients completed anticoagulation therapy (range 1 to 43 mo). Recurrent VTE at 6 mo was noted in 7.5% (n = 3), 6.8% (n = 2) and 2.7% (n = 1) of patients on enoxaparin, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively (all P = NS). MB at 6 mo were 5% (n = 2) for enoxaparin, 6.8% (n = 2) for apixaban and 21.6% (n = 8) for rivaroxaban (overall P = 0.048; vs LMWH P = 0.0423; all other P = NS). Significant predictors of a primary or secondary outcome for all anticoagulation therapies included: Active systemic treatment (OR = 5.1, 95%CI: 1.3-19.3), high Khorana Score [≥ 3 points] (OR = 5.5, 95%CI: 1.7-17.1), active smoker (OR = 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1-21.0), pancreatic cancer (OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 1.9-23.2), and stage IV disease (OR = 9.9, 95%CI: 1.2-79.1).ConclusionRivaroxaban compared to apixaban and enoxaparin had a significantly higher risk of MB on GICA-VTE patients with equivocal efficacy.

Project description:ImportanceIn patients with cancer who have venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended to prevent recurrent VTE. The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate DOACs, compared with LMWH, for preventing recurrent VTE and for rates of bleeding in patients with cancer following an initial VTE event.Design, setting, and participantsUnblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 67 oncology practices in the US that enrolled 671 patients with cancer (any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia) who had a new clinical or radiological diagnosis of VTE. Enrollment occurred from December 2016 to April 2020. Final follow-up was in November 2020.InterventionParticipants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a DOAC (n = 335) or LMWH (n = 336) and were followed up for 6 months or until death. Physicians and patients selected any DOAC or any LMWH (or fondaparinux) and physicians selected drug doses.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the recurrent VTE rate at 6 months. Noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC vs LMWH was defined by the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference of a DOAC relative to LMWH of less than 3% in the randomized cohort that received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. The 6 prespecified secondary outcomes included major bleeding, which was assessed using a 2.5% noninferiority margin.ResultsBetween December 2016 and April 2020, 671 participants were randomized and 638 (95%) completed the trial (median age, 64 years; 353 women [55%]). Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose. Among those randomized to LMWH, 308 received at least 1 dose. Rates of recurrent VTE were 6.1% in the DOAC group and 8.8% in the LMWH group (difference, -2.7%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 0.7%) consistent with the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Of 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, none were statistically significant. Major bleeding occurred in 5.2% of participants in the DOAC group and 5.6% in the LMWH group (difference, -0.4%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 2.5%) and did not meet the noninferiority criterion. Severe adverse events occurred in 33.8% of participants in the DOAC group and 35.1% in the LMWH group. The most common serious adverse events were anemia and death.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE over 6-month follow-up. These findings support use of a DOAC to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744092.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets