Literature DB >> 32556105

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs. low molecular weight heparin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Ayman Elbadawi1, Mina Shnoda2, Karim Mahmoud3, Islam Y Elgendy4.   

Abstract

AIMS: To examine the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS AND
RESULTS: An electronic search of the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through April 2020 for randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes with DOACs vs. LMWH among patients with cancer-related VTE. Summary estimates were reported using random effects model. The main efficacy outcome was VTE recurrence, while the main safety outcome was major bleeding . The final analysis included four randomized trials with a total of 2907 patients. The weighted mean follow-up was 6.1 months. Compared with LMWH, DOACs were associated with lower incidence of VTE recurrence [5.7% vs. 9.1%, risk ratio (RR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.87; P = 0.01], driven by lower incidence of deep venous thrombosis (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.93; P = 0.02). There was no difference in the incidence of major bleeding between DOACs and LMWH (4.8% vs. 3.6%, RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.84-2.11; P = 0.23). The incidence of all-cause mortality was similar (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.84-1.16; P = 0.91). Subgroup analysis suggested no differences according to the type of DOAC regarding recurrent VTE or major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.53 and Pinteraction = 0.11, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with cancer-related VTE, DOACs were associated with lower incidence of VTE recurrence and no difference in the incidence of major bleeding compared with LMWH. Future studies examining the subset of cancer patients who drive the most benefit are encouraged. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
© The Author(s) 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bleeding; Cancer; Direct oral anticoagulants; Meta-analysis; Venous thromboembolism

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32556105     DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaa067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother


  4 in total

Review 1.  2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.

Authors:  Dominique Farge; Corinne Frere; Jean M Connors; Alok A Khorana; Ajay Kakkar; Cihan Ay; Andres Muñoz; Benjamin Brenner; Pedro H Prata; Dialina Brilhante; Darko Antic; Patricia Casais; María Cecilia Guillermo Esposito; Takayuki Ikezoe; Syed A Abutalib; Luis A Meillon-García; Henri Bounameaux; Ingrid Pabinger; James Douketis
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 54.433

Review 2.  Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Wei Xiong
Journal:  Thromb J       Date:  2021-03-31

3.  Application Effect of the Standard Operating Procedure in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism.

Authors:  Hongxia Zhang; Zonghong Zhu; Xiaoyan Wang; Xiaofeng Wang; Limin Fan; Ranran Wu; Chenjing Sun
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.682

4.  Direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparins for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tarinee Rungjirajittranon; Weerapat Owattanapanich; Yingyong Chinthammitr; Theera Ruchutrakool; Bundarika Suwanawiboon
Journal:  Thromb J       Date:  2022-07-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.