Treatment: anticoagulation

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2774-2778
Author(s):  
Cecilia Becattini ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Dose Adjustment ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Severe Renal Failure ◽  
Single Drug ◽  
Sequential Regimen

Anticoagulant treatment should be given for at least 3 months to all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the absence of absolute contraindications. Several parenteral (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux) and oral anticoagulants are currently available for the treatment of VTE according to a sequential regimen (parenteral pretreatment followed by oral anticoagulants) or to a single-drug approach (completely managed with a single anticoagulant agent). Despite similar pharmacokinetics across direct oral anticoagulants, dabigatran and edoxaban have been developed according to a sequential regimen, and apixaban and rivaroxaban according to a single-drug approach. Improved practicality (with no need for laboratory monitoring or dose adjustment) and promising safety results are the main reasons to prefer direct oral anticoagulants over conventional anticoagulation in patients without severe renal failure.

Treatment: anticoagulation

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2774-2778
Author(s):  
Cecilia Becattini ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli
Keyword(s):  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Dose Adjustment ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Severe Renal Failure ◽  
Single Drug ◽  
Favourable Safety ◽  
Favourable Safety Profile ◽  
Sequential Regimen

Anticoagulant treatment should be given for at least 3 months to all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the absence of absolute contraindications. Several parenteral (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux) and oral anticoagulants are currently available for the treatment of VTE according to a sequential regimen (parenteral pretreatment followed by oral anticoagulants) or to a single-drug approach (completely managed with a single anticoagulant agent). Despite similar pharmacokinetics across direct oral anticoagulants, dabigatran and edoxaban have been developed according to a sequential regimen, and apixaban and rivaroxaban according to a single-drug approach. Improved practicality (with no need for laboratory monitoring or dose adjustment) and favourable safety profile are the main reasons to prefer direct oral anticoagulants over conventional anticoagulation in patients without severe renal failure or antiphospholipid syndrome.

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

scholarly journals Anticoagulant treatment satisfaction with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret C. Fang ◽  
Alan S. Go ◽  
Priya A. Prasad ◽  
Jin-Wen Hsu ◽  
Dongjie Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Treatment Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Routine Laboratory ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
The Difference

AbstractTreatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen’s d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen’s d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document