Apixaban and Dalteparin for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Different Sites of Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Andrés Muñoz ◽  
Laura Franco ◽  
Isabelle Mahé ◽  
Benjamin Brenner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancer ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Gynecological Cancer ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Genitourinary Cancer ◽  
Spectrum Of Patients

AbstractEfficacy and safety of anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) may vary in patients with different cancer sites. We evaluated the rates of VTE recurrence and major bleeding and the relative efficacy and safety of 6-month treatment with oral apixaban or subcutaneous dalteparin in patients with different cancer sites randomized in the Caravaggio study. Primary cancer was located at gastrointestinal sites in 375 patients (32.5%), lung in 200 (17.3%), breast in 155 (13.4%), genitourinary sites in 139 (12%), gynecological sites in 119 (10.3%), and was hematological in 85 patients (7.4%). Rates of VTE recurrence were 10.9% in patients with gynecological, 8.8% with gastrointestinal, 6.5% with genitourinary, and 5.5% with lung cancer with lower rates in the other sites of cancer. Rates of major bleeding were 7.2% in patients with genitourinary and 4.8% with gastrointestinal cancer, with lower rates in patients with other sites of cancer. The observed absolute risk difference in VTE recurrence in favor of apixaban was 11.9% in patients with gynecological, 5.5% with lung, 3.7% with genitourinary cancer, and 0.6% with gastrointestinal cancer. None of the risk differences was statistically significant. The rates of major bleeding in patients treated with apixaban or dalteparin was similar across patients with different cancer sites. In conclusion, recurrences appear to be more common in patients with gastrointestinal and gynecological cancer and major bleedings in patients with genitourinary and gastrointestinal cancer. Oral apixaban is a valid oral alternative to subcutaneous dalteparin for the treatment of a large spectrum of patients with cancer-associated VTE.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of a Biosimilar Versus Branded Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Following Major Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized, Prospective, Single-Blinded, Multicenter Clinical Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1208-1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Ramacciotti ◽  
Ubirajara Ferreira ◽  
Agenor José Vasconcelos Costa ◽  
Selma Regina O. Raymundo ◽  
João Antônio Correa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Major Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Clinically Significant

Several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin are already approved and in use globally. Analytical characterization can establish good quality control in manufacturing, but they may not assure similarity in clinical outcomes between biosimilar and branded enoxaparin. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of biosimilar Cristália versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE. In this randomized, prospective single-blind study, we compared Cristália enoxaparin (Ce), a biosimilar version, versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin (Se; at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously per day postoperatively from 7 to 10 days) in 243 patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE for VTE prevention. The primary efficacy outcome was occurrence of VTE or death related to VTE. The principal safety outcomes were a combination of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Bilateral duplex scanning of the legs was performed from days 10 to 14, and follow-ups were performed up to 60 days after surgery. The incidence of VTE was 4.9% in the Cristália group and 1.1% in the Sanofi group (absolute risk difference = 3.80%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.4%-9.0%) yielding noninferiority since the 95% CI does not reach the prespecified value Δ = 20%. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 9.9% in the Cristália group and in 5.5% in the Sanofi group (n.s. ). In conclusion, this study suggests that 40 mg once daily of Ce, a biosimilar enoxaparin, is as effective and safe as the branded Sanofi enoxaparin in the prophylaxis of VTE in patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE.

3054Efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Cavallari ◽  
G Verolino ◽  
G Patti
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Anticoagulation in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) is particularly challenging given the higher risk of both thrombotic and bleeding complications in this setting. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in AF patients with malignancy remain unclear. Purpose In the present meta-analysis we further investigate the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared to warfarin in patients with AF and cancer assuming that available studies may be individually underpowered for endpoints at low incidence, i.e. stroke, major and intracranial bleeding. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the use of NOACs vs. warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Efficacy outcome measures included stroke or systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism and mortality. Safety outcome measures were major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. Results We pooled data from 6 identified studies enrolling a total of 31,756 AF patients with cancer. Mean follow-up was 1.7 years. Patients with cancer had significantly increased annualized rates of venous thromboembolism (1.38% vs. 0.74%), major bleeding (9.01% vs. 5.13%), in particular major gastrointestinal bleeding (2.38% vs. 1.60%), and all-cause mortality (17.73% vs. 8.50%) vs. those without (all P values <0.001), whereas the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ. Compared with warfarin, treatment with NOACs nominally decreased the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (5.41% vs. 2.70%; odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence intervals, CI 0.51, 0.26–1.01; P=0.05; Figure), mainly of ischemic stroke (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35–0.89; P=0.01), and the risk of venous thromboembolism (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.42–0.61; P<0.001). In cancer patients receiving NOACs there was a significant reduction of major bleeding (3.95% vs. 4.66%; OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.94; P=0.02; Figure) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.26% vs. 0.66%; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.82; P=0.02) vs. warfarin, with no difference in gastrointestinal major bleeding rates. Conclusion AF patients on oral anticoagulation and concomitant cancer are at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. NOACs may represent a safer and more effective alternative to warfarin also in this setting of patients.

Direct oral factor Xa inhibitors for the treatment of acute cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23156-e23156
Author(s):  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Robert McBane ◽  
Waldemar Wysokinski ◽  
Alfonso Javier Tafur ◽  
Charles L. Loprinzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer

e23156 Background: A direct meta-analysis was performed to explore the efficacy and safety of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors with dalteparin in patients with cancer associated acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Also, the comparative efficacy and safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban was assessed with a network meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to dalteparin for the management of cancer associated acute VTE. A network meta-analysis using both frequentist and Bayesian methods was performed to analyze VTE recurrence, major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Results: Three randomized control trials, at low risk of bias, enrolled 1,739 patients with cancer associated VTE. Direct comparison showed a lower rate of VTE recurrence in DOAC compared to dalteparin groups (odds Ratio [OR]:0.48, 95% Confidence interval [CI]:0.24-0.96; I2:46%). Indirect comparison suggested that apixaban had greater reduction in VTE recurrence compared to dalteparin (OR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01–0.82), but not rivaroxaban or edoxaban. Apixaban also had the highest probability of being ranked most effective. By direct comparisons, there was an increased likelihood of major bleeding in the DOAC group compared to dalteparin (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.04–2.78). CRNMB did not differ. Indirect estimates were imprecise. Subgroup analyses in gastrointestinal cancers suggested that dalteparin may have the lowest risk of bleeding whereas estimates in urothelial cancer were imprecise. Conclusions: DOACs appear to lower the risk of VTE recurrence compared to daltaparin while increasing major bleeding. Apixaban may be associated with the lowest risk of VTE recurrence compared to the other DOACs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Primary Thromboprophylaxis for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer and Central Venous Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2139-2139
Author(s):  
Allen Li ◽  
Willem Brandt ◽  
Cameron Brown ◽  
Tzu-Fei Wang ◽  
Rick Ikesaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Patients With Cancer

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of mortality in patients with cancer and is associated with significant morbidity and healthcare expenditure. The risk of VTE is also increased following the insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) for chemotherapy deliverance and supportive care. The risks and benefits of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and newly inserted CVC are unclear. Objective We sought to assess the rates of VTE and major bleeding complications to determine the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in adult patients with cancer and a CVC. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and all EBM was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients with cancer and a CVC receiving primary thromboprophylaxis or observation/placebo were included. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were total VTE and major bleeding episodes, respectively. Results A total of 9 RCTs (3155 patients) were included in the analysis. The total rates of VTE were significantly lower in patients receiving primary thromboprophylaxis compared to those not receiving primary prevention (7.6% vs. 13%; Odds Ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82, p &lt; 0.01, I² = 52%) (Figure 1). The rate of major bleeding complication was not increased in patients receiving thromboprophylaxis (0.9% vs. 0.7%; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.40, p = 0.87, I² = 32%) (Figure 2). Conclusions Primary thromboprophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of VTE without increasing the risk of major bleeding complications in patients with cancer and CVC. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leo Pharma: Research Funding. Ikesaka: LEO Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wells: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria. Carrier: Servier: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aspen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LEO Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Benefit and Risk of Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4266-4266
Author(s):  
Nay Min Tun ◽  
Elizabeth Guevara ◽  
Thein H. Oo
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Ambulatory Patients

Abstract Background: Vascular thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Despite the fact that mortality is increased in cancer patients who developed VTE compared to those without VTE, empirical prophylaxis against VTE in ambulatory patients with cancer remains controversial. The risk of VTE is higher for certain types of cancer such as pancreatic and hematologic malignancies, in patients with advanced cancer, and in those who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate the benefit and risk of primary thromboprophylaxis (PTP) with low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in ambulatory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy. Methods: We undertook an extensive literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through July 13, 2014. References of the potential studies were also reviewed for any additional relevant studies. RCTs with reduction in symptomatic VTE as a primary endpoint were included. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate the pooled event-based risk ratio (RR) as well as the pooled absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Fixed effects model was applied because there was homogeneity among the included studies (I2 = 0.00). Results: Two RCTs and a subgroup of another two RCTs, comprising a total of 738 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, were eligible for analysis. Antithrombotics used in these trials were nadroparin (prophylactic dose), semuloparin (prophylactic dose), enoxaparin (semi-therapeutic dose), and dalteparin (therapeutic dose). The duration of PTP lasted from three to six months. The crude incidence of VTE was 5.51% and 15.12% in those receiving anticoagulants and in control patients, respectively, with a risk ratio of 0.36 (CI: 0.22 – 0.59, p < 0.0001). The absolute risk difference in VTE was 9.5% (CI: 5.3 – 13.8 %, p < 0.0001), with an estimate of the number needed to treat (NNT) of 10.5 to prevent one symptomatic VTE event. Major bleeding events were reported in 5.48% of patients on thromboprophylaxis compared to 7.94% in control patients according to an analysis of two RCTs. The pooled relative risk for major bleeding was statistically nonsignificant at 0.68 (CI: 0.33 – 1.39, p = 0.29). Conclusions: A previous meta-analysis reported that approximately 60 patients were required to be treated with LMWH to prevent one symptomatic VTE among unselected cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Our meta-analysis revealed that thromboprophylaxis resulted in a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE events with NNT of 10.5 without an increase in major bleeding events, indicating that PTP with anticoagulants in advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy may be beneficial. Further large randomized phase III studies are recommended to evaluate the effects of such targeted thromboprophylaxis on morbidity, mortality and the costs of care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Risk of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961985362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zeng ◽  
Xuhui Zhang ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip ◽  
Xiaochen Shu ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Cancer

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for preventing primary and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer remain unclear. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to summarize the most up-to-date evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary outcomes included the benefit outcome (VTE) and safety outcome (major bleeding). A random-effects model was used to pool the relative risks (RRs) for data syntheses. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool was used to evaluate the quality of the entire body of evidence across studies. We included 11 RCTs with a total of 3741 patients with cancer for analyses. The DOACs were significantly related with a reduced risk of VTE when compared with non-DOACs: RR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.99, P = .04. Nonsignificant trend towards a higher risk of major bleeding was found in DOACs: RR = 1.28 95% CI: 0.81-2.02, P = .29. The quality of the entire body of evidence was graded as moderate for risk of VTE, and low for risk of major bleeding. To summarize, DOACs were found to have a favorable effect on risk of VTE but a nonsignificant higher risk of major bleeding compared with non-DOACs in patients with cancer. The safety effect of DOACs in patients with cancer requires further evaluation in adequately powered and designed studies.

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (12) ◽  
pp. 1433-1441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frits I. Mulder ◽  
Floris T. M. Bosch ◽  
Annie M. Young ◽  
Andrea Marshall ◽  
Robert D. McBane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55-3.35) and CRNMB (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.73-3.64) were nonsignificantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients with cancer and acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding.

scholarly journals The use of direct oral anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis or treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis and review of the guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norah S. Alsubaie ◽  
Shahad M. Al Rammah ◽  
Reema A. Alshouimi ◽  
Mohammed Y. Alzahrani ◽  
Majed S. Al Yami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Common Causes

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is one of the most common causes of increased morbidity and mortality. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess efficacy and safety of using DOACs for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of CA-VTE and provide a summary for available guidelines’ recommendations. Methods MEDLINE was searched to identify studies evaluating the use of DOACs for thromboprophylaxis or treatment in patients with cancer. Search was limited to peer-reviewed studies published in English. Studies were excluded if they were not RCTs or subgroup analyses of data derived from RCTs, if they did not report efficacy and safety data on patients with active cancer, or if they were published as an abstract. New VTE or VTE recurrence, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were used to assess the efficacy and safety, respectively. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model risk ratios (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the pooled treatment effects of DOACs. Results Four studies evaluating DOACs use for thromboprophylaxis and four – for treatment of CA-VTE were included. Thromboprophylaxis with DOACs was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR = 0.58; 95%CI 0.37,0.91) but with an incremental risk of major bleeding or CRNMB (RR = 1.57; 95%CI 1.10,2.26). CA-VTE treatment with DOACs was linked with a significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.44,0.87) but with an incremental risk of CRNMB (RR = 1.58; 95%CI 1.11,2.24). Conclusions The DOACs are associated with a lower risk of symptomatic VTE and VTE recurrence, but the risk of bleeding remains a considerable concern. Clinical decisions should be made by assessing individual patient’s risk of VTE and bleeding.

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 &lt; 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 &gt; 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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document