scholarly journals Factor Xa inhibitor for venous thromboembolism management in patient with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1257
Author(s):  
Johanes Nugroho Eko Putranto ◽  
Ardyan Wardhana ◽  
Yoga Alfian Noor ◽  
Pirhot Lambok Marnala Yosua Siahaan ◽  
Makhyan Jibril Al Farabi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitor ◽  
Patients With Cancer

Background: An earlier systematic review reported no differences in the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding between factor Xa inhibitors and standard anticoagulation. The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of factor Xa inhibitors for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), specifically in patients with cancer, as there were more randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available. Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically screened for all RCTs assessing factor Xa inhibitor efficacy for VTE management in cancer patients. Using RevMan 5.3, we performed a Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effects meta-analysis of the following outcomes: recurrent VTE, VTE events, and major bleeding rates. Results: We identified 11 studies involving 7,965 patients. Factor Xa inhibitors were superior in preventing VTE recurrence, compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45–0.80; P < 0.01) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33–0.78; P < 0.01). As prophylaxis, factor Xa inhibitors had a similar rate of VTE compared to VKAs (OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.31–3.77]; P = 0.90) and a lower rate compared to placebo (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.35–0.81]; P < 0.01). Major bleeding rates were higher with factor Xa inhibitors than with LMWHs (OR 1.34 [95% CI 0.83–2.18]; P = 0.23), but significantly lower than VKAs (OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55–0.92]; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Factor Xa inhibitors are effective for VTE management in patients with cancer; however, they are also associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to LMWH, but decreased when compared to VKA.

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 Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (07) ◽  
pp. 1128-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Giustozzi ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Jorge del Toro-Cervera ◽  
Frederikus A. Klok ◽  
Rachel P. Rosovsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Abstract Background International guidelines have endorsed the use of edoxaban or rivaroxaban as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial of apixaban versus dalteparin in patients with cancer was completed. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated VTE. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were systematically searched up to March 30, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs versus LMWH for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. The two coprimary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 6 months. Data were pooled by the Mantel–Haenszel method and compared by relative risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Four randomized controlled studies (2,894 patients) comparing apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban with dalteparin were included in the meta-analysis. Recurrent VTE occurred in 75 of 1,446 patients (5.2%) treated with oral factor Xa inhibitors and in 119 of 1,448 patients (8.2%) treated with LMWH (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.91; I 2, 30%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 (4.3%) and 48 (3.3%) patients receiving oral factor Xa inhibitors or LMWH, respectively (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.83–2.08; I 2, 23%). Conclusion In patients with cancer-associated VTE, oral factor Xa inhibitors reduced the risk of recurrent VTE without a significantly higher likelihood of major bleeding at 6 months compared with LMWH.

Direct Oral Factor Xa Inhibitors for the Treatment of Acute Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 94 (12) ◽  
pp. 2444-2454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry E. Fuentes ◽  
Robert D. McBane ◽  
Waldemar E. Wysokinski ◽  
Alfonso J. Tafur ◽  
Charles L. Loprinzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors

scholarly journals Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism: Results of a Randomized Trial (SELECT-D)

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (20) ◽  
pp. 2017-2023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annie M. Young ◽  
Andrea Marshall ◽  
Jenny Thirlwall ◽  
Oliver Chapman ◽  
Anand Lokare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitor ◽  
Patients With Cancer

Purpose Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Long-term daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin has been standard treatment for such patients. The purpose of this study was to assess if an oral factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, would offer an alternative treatment for VTE in patients with cancer. Patient and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, pilot trial in the United Kingdom, patients with active cancer who had symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), incidental PE, or symptomatic lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recruited. Allocation was to dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1, then 150 IU/kg daily for months 2-6) or rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, then 20 mg once daily for a total of 6 months). The primary outcome was VTE recurrence over 6 months. Safety was assessed by major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB). A sample size of 400 patients would provide estimates of VTE recurrence to within ± 4.5%, assuming a VTE recurrence rate at 6 months of 10%. Results A total of 203 patients were randomly assigned to each group, 58% of whom had metastases. Twenty-six patients experienced recurrent VTE (dalteparin, n = 18; rivaroxaban, n = 8). The 6-month cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 11% (95% CI, 7% to 16%) with dalteparin and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) with rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.99). The 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding was 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for dalteparin and 6% (95% CI, 3% to 11%) for rivaroxaban (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.96). Corresponding rates of CRNMB were 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) and 13% (95% CI, 9% to 19%), respectively (HR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.69). Conclusion Rivaroxaban was associated with relatively low VTE recurrence but higher CRNMB compared with dalteparin.

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.

Extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (7) ◽  
pp. 545-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kang-Ling Wang ◽  
Nick van Es ◽  
Chris Cameron ◽  
Lana A Castellucci ◽  
Harry R Büller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Standard Intensity ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Dose Factor

ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant regimens and aspirin for extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials studying vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or aspirin for secondary prevention of VTE beyond 3 months. ORs (95% credible intervals) between treatments were estimated using random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsSixteen studies, totaling more than 22 000 patients, were included. Compared with placebo or observation and with aspirin, respectively, the risk of recurrent VTE was lower with standard-intensity VKAs (0.15 (0.08 to 0.24) and 0.23 (0.09 to 0.54)), low-dose factor Xa inhibitors (0.16 (0.06 to 0.38) and 0.25 (0.09 to 0.66)), standard-dose factor Xa inhibitors (0.17 (0.08 to 0.33) and 0.27 (0.11 to 0.65)) and the direct thrombin inhibitor (0.15 (0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (0.06 to 0.74)) although the risk of major bleeding was higher with standard-intensity VKAs (4.42 (1.99 to 12.24) and 4.14 (1.17 to 18.86)). Effect estimates were consistent in male patients and those with index pulmonary embolism or with unprovoked VTE and in sensitivity analyses. In addition, compared with placebo or observation, the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced with standard-intensity VKAs (0.44 (0.20 to 0.87)) and low-dose factor Xa inhibitors (0.38 (0.12 to 0.995)).ConclusionsStandard-intensity VKAs and DOACs are more efficacious than aspirin for extended VTE treatment. Despite a higher risk of major bleeding, standard-intensity VKAs was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality. Since overall efficacy and safety of standard-intensity VKAs and DOACs are in equipoise, patient factors, costs and patient preferences should be considered when recommending extending anticoagulation treatment.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592090754
Author(s):  
Miao Liu ◽  
Guiyue Wang ◽  
Yuhang Li ◽  
Hongliang Wang ◽  
Haitao Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background: Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer. Results: In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31–0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74–7.52, p = 0.1482, I2 = 0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93–1.83, p = 0.1274, I2 = 0%, respectively). Conclusion: Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.

Major bleeding rates after prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost implications

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Muntz ◽  
David A Scott ◽  
Adam Lloyd ◽  
Matthias Egger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Major Orthopedic Surgery ◽  
Anticoagulant Prophylaxis ◽  
Mean Cost

Objectives: The frequency and consequences of major bleeding associated with anticoagulant prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism is examined.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials that reported rates of major bleeding after pharmaceutical thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. Thromboprophylactic agents were divided into four groups:warfarin/other coumarin derivatives (WARF), unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and pentasaccharide (PS). Meta-analysis was conducted comparing LMWH with each of WARF, UFH, and PS. The frequency of re-operation due to major bleeding was reviewed and combined with published costs to estimate the mean cost of managing major bleeding events in these patients.Results: Twenty-one studies including 20,523 patients met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. No evidence of significant between-trial heterogeneity in risk ratios was found. Combined (fixed effects) relative risks (RR) of major bleeding compared with LMWH were WARF – RR 0.59 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.80); UFH – RR 1.52 (95 percent CI, 1.04–2.23); PS – RR 1.52 (95 percent CI, 1.11–2.09). Seventy-one studies including 32,433 patients were included in the review of consequences of major bleeding. We estimated that the average cost of major bleeding is $113 per patient receiving thromboprophylaxis.Conclusions: LMWH results in fewer major bleeding episodes than UFH and PS but more than WARF. These events are costly and clinically important.

Abstract 14648: Gender Differences in Procedural Complications Associated With Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 244,353 Patients

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin L Campbell ◽  
John Larson ◽  
Talha Farid ◽  
Stacy Westerman ◽  
Michael S Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Procedural Complications

Introduction: Women undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (AFCA) have higher rates of vascular complications and major bleeding. However, studies have been underpowered to detect differences in rare complications such as stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and procedural mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review of databases (PubMed, World of Science, Embase) to identify studies published since 2010 reporting AFCA complications by gender. Six complications of interest were: 1) vascular/groin complications; 2) pericardial effusion/tamponade; 3) stroke/TIA; 4) permanent phrenic nerve injury; 5) major bleeding & 6) procedural mortality. For meta-analysis, random effects models were used when heterogeneity between studies was ≥ 50% (vascular complications, major bleeding) and fixed effects models for other endpoints. Results: Of 5716 citations, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 244,353 patients undergoing AFCA, of whom 33% were women. Women were older (65.3 ± 11.2 vs. 60.4 ± 13.2 years), more likely hypertensive (60.6 vs. 55.5%) and diabetic (18.3 vs. 16.5%) and had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores (3.0 ± 1.8 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4) (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The rates of all 6 complications were significantly higher in women (Table). However, despite statistically significant differences, the overall incidences of major complications were very low in both genders: stroke/TIA (women 0.51 vs. men 0.39%) and procedural mortality (women 0.25 vs. men 0.18%). Conclusion: Women experience significantly higher rates of AFCA complications. However, the incidence of major procedural complications is very low in both genders. The higher rate of complications in women may be partially attributable to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities at the time of ablation. More detailed studies are needed to better define the mechanisms of increased risk in women and to identify strategies for closing the gender gap.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document