Low-molecular weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis. Are we at the crossroad?

2019 ◽  
Vol 173 ◽  
pp. 156-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real world experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 793-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan K Phelps ◽  
Tracy E Wiczer ◽  
H Paige Erdeljac ◽  
Kelsey R Van Deusen ◽  
Kyle Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Recurrent Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Introduction Low-molecular-weight heparins are the standard treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants are a new option for thrombosis treatment; however, data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis are limited. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding within 6 months of starting either low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Secondary objectives were to determine the rates of clinically relevant-non-major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Patients/methods This is a retrospective cohort study including adults with cancer-associated thrombosis treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant between 2010 and 2016 at the Ohio State University. Medical records were reviewed for 6 months after initiation of anticoagulation or until the occurrence of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis, major bleeding, cessation of anticoagulation of interest, or death, whichever occurred first. Results Four hundred and eighty patients were included (290 low-molecular-weight heparin and 190 direct oral anticoagulant). Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant were found to carry “lower risk” features including cancer with lower VTE risk and lower rate of metastatic disease. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (7.2% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 6.3% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.71) or major bleeding (7.6% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 2.6% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.08). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that in a select population of cancer patients with VTE, direct oral anticoagulant use can be as effective and safe compared to the standard therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin.

A retrospective single-center evaluation of the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24102-e24102
Author(s):  
Melissa McShane ◽  
Jordan Senchak ◽  
Anthony Stack ◽  
Justina Frimpong ◽  
Van T Hellerslia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

e24102 Background: Over the past decade, there has been an increase in the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the cancer population despite limited data comparing its use against low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), the standard of care in cancer patients. Increasing data supporting DOACs in cancer-associated thrombosis has emerged over the past few years. Nonetheless, this study will evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of DOACs versus LMWH in cancer-associated thrombosis within an urban setting associated with low socioeconomic status. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of medical records from patients treated at an urban academic medical center from October 2010 through October 2018. Patients met study inclusion if they had a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism occurring after the date of diagnosis of active cancer and were prescribed a direct oral anticoagulant (rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban) or a low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin, enoxaparin, or fondaparinux) as monotherapy for the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease. Patients were excluded if they had less than 6 months of follow up data for reasons other than death. The primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and death. Results: Of the 914 patients who met inclusion criteria, 286 were excluded due to lack of follow up data. The remaining patients included 472 in the LMWH arm and 156 in the DOAC arm. At 6 months, recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 5 of the 472 patients (1.1%) in the LMWH group as compared with 4 of the 156 patients (2.6%) in the DOAC group (p = 0.170). Major bleeding occurred in 36 patients (7.6%) in the LMWH group and 11 patients (7.0%) in the DOAC group (p = 0.813). Death within 6 months of starting anticoagulation occurred in 76 patients (16.1%) in the LMWH group and 16 patients (9.6%) in the DOAC group (p = 0.046). Discontinuation before 6 months of treatment occurred in 241 patients (51.2%) in the LMWH group and 46 patients (29.5%) in the DOAC group. Conclusions: The LMWH and DOAC groups had similar rates of recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding. The mortality rate within 6 months of starting anticoagulation was significantly higher in the LMWH group and this difference requires further evaluation. These results help support the continued use of DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis and demonstrate that DOACs are as safe and effective as LMWH in this patient population.

“direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin for Acute Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarinee Rungjirajittranon ◽  
Weerapat Owattanapanich ◽  
Yingyong Chinthammitr ◽  
Theera Ruchutrakool ◽  
Bundarika Suwanawiboon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Gi Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Abstract BackgroundThe association between gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is well known. Previous randomized controlled studies demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) effectively treat cancer-associated VTE (CAT). However, some DOACs appeared to increase the risk of bleeding, particularly in patients with GI malignancies. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in GI cancer-associated thrombosis.MethodsAll relevant studies that compared DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in GI cancer-associated thrombosis that were published before December 2020 were individually searched in two databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) by two investigators. The effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from each eligible study were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel method.ResultsA total of 1,418 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of major bleeding was not significantly different between groups (relative risk [RR]: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.93-2.65, P=0.09, I2=34%). However, the rate of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) was significantly higher in the DOACs group (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.34-2.91, P=0.0005, I2=0%). The risk of recurrent VTE was not significantly different between groups (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.28, P=0.27, I2=0%).ConclusionsThe current data suggests that treatment of GI cancer-associated thrombosis with DOACs significantly increases the risk of CRNMB, and a trend towards major bleeding risk in DOACs group. The efficacy of DOACs for preventing recurrent VTE in GI cancer was comparable to that of LMWHs.Trial registration: INPLASY202180113

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in malignancy induced venous thromboembolism-a systematic review and meta analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abdul Razzack ◽  
N Hussain ◽  
S Adeel Hassan ◽  
S Mandava ◽  
F Yasmin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Dichotomous Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background- Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proven to be more effective in the management of venous thromboembolism (MVTE). The efficacy and safety of LMWH or DOACs in treatment of recurrent or malignancy induced VTE is not studied in literature. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of LMWH and  DOACs in the management of malignancy induced  VTE Methods- Electronic databases ( PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from inception to November  28th, 2020. Dichotomous data was extracted for prevention of VTE and risk of major bleeding in patients taking either LMWH or DOACs. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance to be considered if the confidence interval excludes 1 and p < 0.05.  Results- Three studies with 2607 patients (DOACs n = 1301 ; LMWH n = 1306) were included in analysis. All the study population had active cancer of any kind diagnosed within the past 6 months. Average follow-up period for each trial was 6 months. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower odds of recurrence of MVTE as compared to LMWH( OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P = 0.003, I2 = 0). There was no significant difference in major bleeding among patients receiving LMWH or DOACs  (OR-0.71, 95%CI 0.46-1.10, P = 0.13, I2 = 22%) (Figure 1). We had no publication bias in our results (Egger’s regression p > 0.05). Conclusion- DOACs are superior to LMWH in prevention of MVTE and have similar major bleeding risk as that of LMWH. Abstract Figure. A)VTE Recurrence B)Major Bleeding events

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document