Dataset Information

Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) monotherapy for the initial and long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently reported additional results on the safety and efficacy of DOACs in this setting. We performed an updated meta-analysis of all publicly available data from RCTs comparing DOACs with LMWHs for the treatment of CAT. Six RCTs enrolling 3690 patients with CAT were included. Compared with LMWHs, DOACs significantly decreased the risk of CAT recurrence (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85), with a non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.82-1.67), a significant increase in the risk of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR 1.66; 95%CI, 1.31-2.09) and no difference in all-cause mortality rates. These results increase the level of certainty of available evidence supporting the use of DOACs as an effective and safe option for the treatment of CAT in selected cancer patients.

SUBMITTER: Frere C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9124390 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Frere Corinne C Farge Dominique D Schrag Deborah D Prata Pedro H PH Connors Jean M JM

Journal of hematology & oncology 20220521 1

International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) monotherapy for the initial and long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently reported additional results on the safety and efficacy of DOACs in this setting. We performed an updated meta-analysis of all publicly available data from RCTs comparing DOACs with L ...[more]

PMID: 35598026

Similar Datasets

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: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:ImportanceIt is unclear whether the clinical benefits associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are similar to those associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in Asian individuals with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveTo compare the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events and bleeding associated with use of a NOAC vs use of the LMWH enoxaparin in Asian individuals with cancer-associated VTE.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted using data from the Chang Gung Research Database, a multi-institutional electronic medical records database in Taiwan. A cohort of 1109 patients with cancer-associated VTE were identified between January 1, 2012, and January 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through December 2020.ExposuresReceiving a NOAC (including rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, or dabigatran) or the LMWH enoxaparin.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. We compared risks of recurrent VTE or major bleeding between groups using Cox proportional hazards models. In addition, we conducted an analysis using a Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model that considered death as a competing risk.ResultsAmong 1109 patients with cancer and newly diagnosed VTE, 578 (52.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age at index date was 66.0 (13.0) years; 529 patients (47.7%) received NOACs and 580 patients (52.3%) received the LMWH enoxaparin. Composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding occurred in 75 patients (14.1%) in the NOAC group and 101 patients (17.4%) in the enoxaparin group (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.07; P = .11). The groups had similar risk of VTE recurrence (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = .05) and major bleeding (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; P = .32) at 12 months of follow-up. However, taking a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with receiving enoxaparin (10 patients [1.9%] vs 41 patients [7.1%]; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.15-0.59; P < .001). Findings for both primary outcomes were consistent with competing risk analyses (recurrent VTE: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; P = .05; major bleeding: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.16; P = .21).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that in real-world practice, among Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, use of a NOAC was associated with a similar risk for recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with use of the LMWH enoxaparin. Nonetheless, use of a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets