Pros and cons of new oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina Verso ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Paolo Prandoni
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
New Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Pros And Cons

Treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. 121-125
Author(s):  
I. Pabinger ◽  
C. Ay
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
New Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Potential Use

SummaryCancer is a major and independent risk factor of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In clinical practice, a high number of VTE events occurs in patients with cancer, and treatment of cancerassociated VTE differs in several aspects from treatment of VTE in the general population. However, treatment in cancer patients remains a major challenge, as the risk of recurrence of VTE as well as the risk of major bleeding during anticoagulation is substantially higher in patients with cancer than in those without cancer. In several clinical trials, different anticoagulants and regimens have been investigated for treatment of acute VTE and secondary prophylaxis in cancer patients to prevent recurrence. Based on the results of these trials, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) has become the treatment of choice in cancer patients with acute VTE in the initial period and for extended and long-term anticoagulation for 3-6 months. New oral anticoagulants directly inhibiting thrombin or factor Xa, have been developed in the past decade and studied in large phase III clinical trials. Results from currently completed trials are promising and indicate their potential use for treatment of VTE. However, the role of the new oral thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors for VTE treatment in cancer patients still has to be clarified in further studies specifically focusing on cancer-associated VTE. This brief review will summarize the current strategies of initial and long-term VTE treatment in patients with cancer and discuss the potential use of the new oral anticoagulants.

Pros and cons of new oral anticoagulants

Hematology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 (1) ◽  
pp. 464-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Rapid Onset ◽  
New Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Therapeutic Class ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Additional Agent

Abstract The availability of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) targeting either thrombin (dabigatran etexilate) or factor Xa (rivaroxaban and apixaban) for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis has been highly anticipated. NOACs have major pharmacologic advantages over vitamin K antagonists (eg, warfarin), including rapid onset/offset of action, few drug interactions, and predictable pharmacokinetics, eliminating the requirement for regular coagulation monitoring. Regulatory agencies have approved several NOACs for specific indications based on the results of clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety that are at least as good, if not better, than warfarin (for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism) or low-molecular-weight heparin, which is injectable (for initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty). However, the adoption of this new therapeutic class into clinical practice has been slower than expected due to several factors including concerns regarding medication adherence without laboratory monitoring, uncertainty about dosing in some patient populations (eg, renal dysfunction, marked extremes of body weight), and higher drug costs compared with warfarin. Other issues are the current absence of specific antidotes for NOACs and assays to measure drug levels at most centers. The indications for NOACs on the market will expand and at least one additional agent (edoxaban) will likely gain approval within the next 2 years. As practitioners gain familiarity with the drugs and healthcare systems adapt to their use, NOAC use will increase substantially over time. Warfarin, however, will continue to be an appropriate anticoagulant choice for many patients.

Abstract 12901: Novel Oral Anticoagulants Are Associated With Decreased Recurrence of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil Upadhaya ◽  
Seetharamprasad Madala ◽  
Sunil Badami
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Novel Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
P Value ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Introduction: Patients with cancer are at high risk for recurrent thromboembolic phenomenon. Use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in such patients is controversial. We conducted this updated meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled efficacy and safety of NOAC in patients with cancer. Methods: We did systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing NOAC with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE treatment in cancer patients till April 2020. The efficacy outcomes were recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality rates, and the primary safety outcome was incidence of major bleeding rate. Results: Four randomized controlled studies comparing NOAC with LMWH (1446 patients in NOAC group and 1448 patients in LMWH group) were included in our study. Use of NOAC lead to significant reduction in recurrent VTE rate (odds ratio (OR): 0.55 [0.36-0.84], I 2 = 45 %, p value = 0.006) (Figure 1). However, we did not find any significant difference in rate of major bleeding (OR: 1.30 [0.76-2.23], I 2 = 35%, p value = 0.34) (Figure 2) and all-cause mortality (OR: 1 [0.80 - 1.26], I 2 = 33%, p value = 0.98). Conclusions: This updated meta-analysis showed comparatively lower pooled recurrent VTE rate in patient being treated with NOAC, whereas similar rates of major bleeding and all-cause death. NOAC are more efficacious and has similar safety profile compared with LMWH.

scholarly journals Success of Online CME at Improving Knowledge and Confidence Around Guideline-Directed Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Caroline Padbury ◽  
Margaret Harris ◽  
Michael LaCouture ◽  
Jelena Spyropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis ◽  
Post Assessment

Title:Success of Online CME at Improving Knowledge and Confidence Around Guideline-Directed Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Study Objectives:Recent guidance statements recommend the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and in patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism at low risk of bleeding and no drug-drug interactions.[Farge 2019; Key 2020] Yet, many clinicians lack knowledge and confidence with integrating DOACs into management strategies for patients with cancer in accordance to guideline recommendations.[Cushman 2015; Khorana 2016] We sought to determine if online continuing medical education (CME) could improve the knowledge and confidence of hematologists/oncologists regarding guideline-directed use of DOACs in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. Methods:This CME intervention comprised of a 30-minute online video-based roundtable discussion among experts in the field of cancer-associated thrombosis management. Responses to 3 multiple-choice, knowledge questions and 1 self-efficacy, 5-point Likert scale confidence question were analyzed using a repeated pairs pre-/post-assessment study design. A chi-square test (P <.05 is considered significant) assessed pre- to post-activity change . The activity launched December 23, 2019, and data were collected through February 24, 2020. Results:In total, 71 Hematologists/Oncologists were included in this study. Overall, there were knowledge and confidence improvements seen among all groups from pre- to post-assessment: 27% of hematologists/oncologists (P<.01) improved at identifying guideline-directed therapy regarding recommended thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer per guideline recommendations.27% of hematologists/oncologists (P<.01) improved at selecting guideline-appropriate treatment options for cancer-associated thrombosis.44% of hematologists/oncologists had an increase in confidence in managing thrombosis in patients with cancer. Continued educational gaps: 25% of hematologists/oncologists failed to select guideline recommended DOAC therapy for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients.45% of hematologists/oncologists failed to select guideline recommended DOAC therapy for treatment of thrombosis in cancer patients.66% of hematologists/oncologists still remain at only a rating of 1 to 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 in their confidence managing thrombosis in patients with cancer. Conclusion:This study demonstrates the success of online, CME-accredited, video-based roundtable discussion with experts in the field on significantly improving knowledge and confidence of hematologists/oncologists related to the guideline-recommended use of DOACs in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. Continued gaps were also identified for future educational targets. Sources of support: Developed through an independent educational grant from Janssen in partnership with the University of Chicago. References: Cushman M, Creager MA. Improving awareness and outcomes related to venous thromboembolism. JAMA. 2015;314(18):1913-4. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. The Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(10):e566-581. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):496-520. Khorana AA, Yannicelli D, McCrae KR, et al. Evaluation of US prescription patterns: are treatment guidelines for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism being followed? Thromb Res. 2016 Sep;145:51-3. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document