scholarly journals Broadening the Categories of Patients Eligible for Extended Venous Thromboembolism Treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 120 (01) ◽  
pp. 014-026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Schindewolf ◽  
Jeffrey Ian Weitz
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Profile Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Specific Risk ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractTraditionally, venous thromboembolism (VTE) resulting from major transient risk factors (e.g., surgery or trauma) or a major persistent risk factor such as cancer, has been defined as being provoked, whereas unprovoked VTE encompasses events without an identifiable cause. These categorizations influence anticoagulant treatment duration; unlike VTE provoked by major transient risk factors, extended anticoagulation beyond 3 months is advised for patients with cancer or unprovoked VTE due to risk persistence after treatment cessation. However, some patients with VTE provoked by minor transient or minor persistent risk factors may also be candidates for extended anticoagulation therapy due to the continuing risk of recurrence. In patients who require extended therapy, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are effective but are associated with an increased risk of bleeding and various treatment burdens (e.g., anticoagulation monitoring and dose adjustment). Evaluations of extended VTE treatment with the less-burdensome direct oral anticoagulants such as apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban show that they are at least as safe and effective as VKAs in a broad range of patients. In addition, apixaban and rivaroxaban offer more than one dosing option, allowing tailoring of treatment to the patient's specific risk factor profile. Analysis of more granular definitions for risk factor groupings has also yielded vital information on the most appropriate strategies for the treatment of patients with specific risk factors, highlighting that extended anticoagulation treatment may benefit those with minor transient and persistent environmental and nonenvironmental risk factors who commonly receive shorter-duration therapy.

scholarly journals Canadian consensus recommendations on the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Part 2: treatment

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 144 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.C. Easaw ◽  
M.A. Shea-Budgell ◽  
C.M.J. Wu ◽  
P.M. Czaykowski ◽  
J. Kassis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Renal Insufficiency ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Increased Risk

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (vte). Anticoagulation therapy is used to treat vte; however, patients with cancer have unique clinical circumstances that can often make decisions surrounding the administration of therapeutic anticoagulation complicated. No national Canadian guidelines on the management of established cancer-associated thrombosis have been published. We therefore aimed to develop a consensus-based, evidence-informed guideline on the topic.PubMed was searched for clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2013. Reference lists of key articles were hand-searched for additional publications. Content experts from across Canada were assembled to review the evidence and make recommendations.Low molecular weight heparin is the treatment of choice for cancer patients with established vte. Direct oral anticoagulants are not recommended for the treatment of vte at this time. Specific clinical scenarios, including the presence of an indwelling venous catheter, renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia, warrant modifications in the therapeutic administration of anticoagulation therapy. Patients with recurrent vte should receive extended (>3 months) anticoagulant therapy. Incidental vte should generally be treated in the same manner as symptomatic vte. There is no evidence to support the monitoring of anti–factor Xa levels in clinically stable cancer patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation; however, levels of anti–factor Xa could be checked at baseline and periodically thereafter in patients with renal insufficiency. Follow-up and education about the signs and symptoms of vte are important components of ongoing patient care.

Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Phlebologie ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (06) ◽  
pp. 340-351
Author(s):  
M. Voigtlaender ◽  
F. Langer
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Longterm Treatment ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Direct Head

SummaryCancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at increased risk for both bleeding and VTE recurrence. Anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the standard of care during the initial and longterm treatment phase (i.e. during the first 3–6 months of therapy) based on its overall beneficial safety and efficacy profile compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran are approved for the treatment of acute VTE, and the combined six phase-3 trials have included > 1 500 patients with active cancer, as defined by variable selection criteria. Subgroup analyses of these patients, either pooled or separately reported, suggest that DOACs could be a safe and efficacious alternative to VKA therapy for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. However, the populations of cancer patients included in the DOAC and LMWH trials are not comparable with regard to mortality and VTE risk, and no specific data from direct head-to-head comparisons of DOACs with LMWHs are currently available. The use of DOACs for the management of VTE in cancer is thus not recommended by clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for prevention of recurrent arterial or venous thromboembolic events (ATE/VTE) in myeloproliferative neoplasms

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karlo Huenerbein ◽  
Parvis Sadjadian ◽  
Tatjana Becker ◽  
Vera Kolatzki ◽  
Eva Deventer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasms ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic

AbstractIn patients with BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), arterial or venous thromboembolic events (ATE/VTE) are a major burden. In order to control these complications, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are widely used. There is no robust evidence supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in MPN patients. We therefore compared the efficacy and safety of both anticoagulants in 71 cases from a cohort of 782 MPN patients. Seventy-one of 782 MPN patients (9.1%) had ATE/VTE with nine ATE (12.7%) and 62 VTE (87.3%). Forty-five of 71 ATE/VTE (63.4%) were treated with VKA and 26 (36.6%) with DOAC. The duration of anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.984), the number of patients receiving additional aspirin (p = 1.0), and the proportion of patients receiving cytoreductive therapy (p = 0.807) did not differ significantly between the VKA and DOAC groups. During anticoagulation therapy, significantly more relapses occurred under VKA (n = 16) compared to DOAC treatment (n = 0, p = 0.0003). However, during the entire observation period of median 3.2 years (0.1–20.4), ATE/VTE relapse-free survival (p = 0.2) did not differ significantly between the two anticoagulants. For all bleeding events (p = 0.516) or major bleeding (p = 1.0), no significant differences were observed between VKA and DOAC. In our experience, the use of DOAC was as effective and safe as VKA, possibly even potentially beneficial with a lower number of recurrences and no increased risk for bleedings. However, further and larger studies are required before DOAC can be routinely used in MPN patients.

scholarly journals Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2905
Author(s):  
Martin Kirschner ◽  
Nicole do Ó Hartmann ◽  
Stefani Parmentier ◽  
Christina Hart ◽  
Larissa Henze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Thrombotic Risk ◽  
Indwelling Catheters ◽  
Increased Risk

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

Venous Thromboembolism and Renal Impairment: Insights from the SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER)

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (08) ◽  
pp. 851-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Spirk ◽  
Tim Sebastian ◽  
Martin Banyai ◽  
Jürg H. Beer ◽  
Lucia Mazzolai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractRenal impairment (RI) has increased substantially over the last decades. In the absence of data from confirmatory research, real-life data on anticoagulation treatment and clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with RI are needed. In the SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER), 2,062 consecutive patients with objectively confirmed VTE were enrolled. In the present analysis, we compared characteristics, initial and maintenance anticoagulation, and adjusted 90-day clinical outcomes of those with (defined as estimated creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) and without severe RI. Overall, 240 (12%) patients had severe RI; they were older, and more frequently had chronic and acute comorbidities. VTE severity was similar between patients with and without severe RI. Initial anticoagulation in patients with severe RI was more often performed with unfractionated heparin (44 vs. 24%), and less often with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (52 vs. 61%) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; 4 vs. 12%). Maintenance anticoagulation in patients with severe RI was more frequently managed with vitamin K antagonists (70 vs. 60%) and less frequently with DOAC (12 vs. 21%). Severe RI was associated with increased risk of 90-day mortality (9.2 vs. 4.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41–3.65), but with similar risk of recurrent VTE (3.3 vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.57–2.52) and major bleeding (2.1 vs. 2.0%, HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.41–2.68). In patients with severe RI, the use of LMWH versus any other treatment was associated with reduced mortality (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14–0.94; p = 0.036) and similar rate of major bleeding (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.17–2.00; p = 0.39). Acute or chronic comorbidities rather than VTE severity or recurrence may explain increased early mortality in patients with severe RI. The higher rate of VTE recurrence, specifically fatal events, than major bleeding reinforces the need for effective anticoagulation in VTE patients with severe RI.

scholarly journals The Current Status of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolism Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-295
Author(s):  
К. V. Lobastov ◽  
I. V. Schastlivtsev
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Discontinuation Of Treatment

This article is a review of epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. In accordance with actual guidelines, the duration of anticoagulant therapy of cancer-related venous thrombosis should be at least 6 months. The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding, so low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), in particular dalteparin, has been the "gold standard" until recently. Compared to VKA, prolonged use of LMWH can reduce the incidence of VTE recurrence without affecting the risk of bleeding or death. The main disadvantage of LMWH is low compliance, leading to premature discontinuation of treatment or switching to alternative anticoagulants. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have changed the situation. Compared to VKA, they demonstrated higher efficacy with a similar (or improved for individual DOACs) safety in patients with cancer-related VTE. Recently, the results of studies comparing the use of DOACs with dalteparin in cancer patients have been published: SELECT-D (rivaroxaban), HOKUSAI-VTE Cancer (edoxaban), ADAM VTE (apixaban), CARAVAGGIO (apixaban). Rivaroxaban showed higher efficacy than dalteparin with a similar risk of major bleeding, but an increased risk of clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. Edoxaban had the same efficacy as dalteparin but increased risk of major but not CRNM bleeding. Apixaban showed similar efficacy and safety as dalteparin in the CARAVAGGIO study, but did not provide higher safety in the ADAM VTE study. It was noted that gastrointestinal and urogenital bleeding dominated in the structure of hemorrhagic complications of DOACs. The results of published trials are reflected in the current guidelines of the specialized societies. DOACs (particularly, rivaroxaban and edoxaban) are recommended for the VTE treatment in cancer patients.

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (04) ◽  
pp. 241-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minna Voigtlaender ◽  
Florian Langer
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Longterm Treatment ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Direct Head

SummaryCancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at increased risk for both bleeding and VTE recurrence. Anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the standard of care during the initial and longterm treatment phase (i.e. during the first 3 – 6 months of therapy) based on its overall beneficial safety and efficacy profile compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran are approved for the treatment of acute VTE, and the combined six phase-3 trials have included > 1500 patients with active cancer, as defined by variable selection criteria. Subgroup analyses of these patients, either pooled or separately reported, suggest that DOACs could be a safe and efficacious alternative to VKA therapy for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. However, the populations of cancer patients included in the DOAC and LMWH trials are not comparable with regard to mortality and VTE risk, and no specific data from direct head-to-head comparisons of DOACs with LMWHs are currently available. The use of DOACs for the management of VTE in cancer is thus not recommended by clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals Patients' Satisfaction with Anticoagulant Treatment for Venous Thromboembolism

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-14
Author(s):  
Roxanne Dault ◽  
Lucie Blais ◽  
Alain Vanasse ◽  
Paul Farand ◽  
Sylvie Perrault ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Treatment Satisfaction ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Treatment Expectations ◽  
Similar Treatment

Background: Data on treatment expectation and perception towards vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are sparse.Methods: Prospective observational study including subjects admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of VTE and a prescription of VKA, DOAC, or a LMWH. Treatment expectations, convenience and satisfaction were assessed using the Perception of anticoagulant treatment questionnaire (PACT-Q) at baseline and at three months.Results: A total of 140 patients were included. Treatment expectations regarding ease of use and the ability to self-manage anticoagulation therapy were higher in patients on DOACs. However, overall treatment satisfaction scores were similar at three months between the groups.Conclusion: Patients with VTE who are prescribed an anticoagulant have different expectations at baseline, but appear to have similar treatment satisfaction regardless of the type of anticoagulant prescribed. 

First-Line Therapies for VTE Treatment and Secondary Prophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A New Direction

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-363
Author(s):  
Samantha M. Vogel ◽  
Leticia V. Smith ◽  
Evan J. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
English Language ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: To review evidence behind anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a focus on low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Data Sources: PubMed was searched using terms “venous thromboembolism,” “cancer,” and “anticoagulation.” This search was restricted to clinical trials, meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses. Additional references were identified from reviewing literature citations. Study Selection: English-language prospective and retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of LMWH and DOACs in patients with cancer. Data Analysis: Several trials were analyzed that compared anticoagulation therapies for prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer. Many studies comparing LMWH and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) found nonsignificant differences between therapies. A single study demonstrated that LMWHs are superior to VKAs. This evidence supporting LMWH for long-term VTE treatment in patients with cancer is based on comparison to VKA, but results are limited by methodological issues, and the benefit of LMWH may be driven by poor control. Subanalyses of DOAC trials suggest these are equally or more effective as VKA in cancer, but this conclusion is underpowered. Conclusion: DOACs have the potential to bypass many challenges with traditional therapy. After analyzing the evidence available, we conclude that after careful consideration of risks and benefits, use of DOACs for VTE treatment are a reasonable option in patients with cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document