Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Risk of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zeng J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6714916 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Anticoagulation for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be challenging due to complications-including bleeding and potential drug-drug interactions with chemotherapy-associated with vitamin K antagonists and inconvenience of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) could partially overcome these issues, but until recently there were no large clinical trials assessing their efficacy and safety in cancer patients. This review summarizes clinical treatment guidelines, prior clinical and real-world evidence for anticoagulant choice, recent clinical trials assessing DOACs for cancer-associated VTE (i.e. Hokusai-VTE Cancer, SELECT-D, CARAVAGGIO, and ADAM VTE), and special considerations for DOAC use. Based on established data, clinical guidelines recommend patients with cancer-associated VTE receive LMWH treatment of at least 3-6 months. Nevertheless, LMWH is underused and associated with poor compliance and persistence in these patients relative to oral anticoagulants. Clinical data supporting DOAC use in cancer patients are becoming available. In Hokusai-VTE Cancer, edoxaban was noninferior to dalteparin for the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding (12.8% versus 13.5%), with numerically lower recurrent VTE (7.9% versus 11.3%) and significantly higher major bleeding (6.9% versus 4.0%); only patients with gastrointestinal cancer had significantly higher risk of bleeding with edoxaban. In SELECT-D, rivaroxaban had numerically lower VTE recurrence (4% versus 11%), comparable major bleeding (6% versus 4%), and numerically higher clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (13% versus 4%) versus dalteparin. Most bleeding events were gastrointestinal or urologic; patients with esophageal/gastroesophageal cancer had higher rates of major bleeding with rivaroxaban (36% versus 11%). For comparison of apixaban versus dalteparin, CARAVAGGIO is ongoing, and preliminary results from ADAM VTE are favorable. This review concludes that DOACs appear to be reasonable alternatives to LMWH for treatment of cancer-associated VTE. In patients with gastrointestinal cancer, DOAC use should be considered on a case-by-case basis with consideration of the relative risks and benefits.
| S-EPMC6594460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data on specific studies in cancer patients using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are still scarce. For preventing VTE with DOACs, current experience is still very limited, so definite conclusions cannot yet be drawn. However, DOACs have so far been compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with acute VTE in 5 studies, and several hundreds of patients included in these studies had either active cancer, a history of cancer, or a new occurrence of cancer during the course of disease. Meta-analyses have revealed an at least similar efficacy and safety profile of DOACs compared with VKAs. A number of studies of cancer patients investigating primary prevention and treatment are underway, and some will be finalized soon. Nevertheless, we might need further trials, specifically on the prevention of VTE in patients who are at particularly high risk. This article also includes a personal opinion on the use of DOACs in cancer patients. In conclusion, the currently available data show that DOACs might be safe and efficacious in the treatment of VTE, however, this has yet to be proven in specifically designed trials in patients with cancer. With regard to prevention, thus far, even less data exist, and the outcomes of the ongoing studies have to be evaluated before DOACs may be used for primary prevention.
| S-EPMC6142595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStudies on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized cancer patients are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the primary prevention of VTE in hospitalized cancer patients.MethodsClinical outcomes included thrombosis, VTE, other thrombosis, all bleeding, major bleeding, nonmajor bleeding, and all-cause death. A 1:1 cohort of rivaroxaban and LMWH patients was created by propensity score matching.ResultsA total of 2,385 cancer patients were included in this study. During the 3-month follow-up period, 129 (5.4%) thrombosis events occurred, 63 (2.7%) of which were VTEs and 66 (2.8%) of which were other thrombosis events. All bleeding occurred in 163 (6.8%) patients, 68 (2.9%) had major bleeding, and 95 (4.0%) had nonmajor bleeding. All-cause deaths occurred in 113 (4.7%) patients. After adjusting for various confounders, the incidence of thrombosis and other thromboses was significantly lower in the rivaroxaban group than in the LMWH group [OR 0.543, 95% CI (0.343-0.859), p = 0.009; OR 0.461, 95% CI (0.241-0.883), p = 0.020]. There were no significant differences in incidence of VTE, total bleeding, major bleeding, nonmajor bleeding, or all-cause death.ConclusionIn oncology patients receiving thromboprophylaxis, rivaroxaban has a lower incidence of thrombosis and other thrombosis and a similar incidence of VTE as LMWH and does not increase the risk of bleeding. Rivaroxaban may be an attractive alternative to LMWH for preventing VTE in hospitalized cancer patients.
| S-EPMC11257898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal cancer (GICA) is associated with a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to other solid tumors, moreover, recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) complications during anticoagulation treatment have an associated increase rate. GICA-VTE remains a challenging clinical scenario with MB concerns for utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), especially with active cancer therapies.AimTo evaluate patient risk factors, effectiveness (VTE) and safety (MB) of DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with active GICA-VTE.MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients receiving DOACs and LMWH with GICA and symptomatic or incidental VTE treated at comprehensive cancer center from November 2013 to February 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included active GI cancer diagnosed at any stage or treatment +/- 6 mo of VTE diagnosis, whom were prescribed 6 mo or more of DOACs or LMWH. The Chi-squared test was used for overall and the Fisher exact test for pairwise comparisons of the proportions of patients experiencing recurrent VTE and MB events. Odds ratios were used to compare the relative odds of the occurrence of the outcome given exposure to the risk factor.ResultsA total of 144 patients were prescribed anticoagulation, in which 106 fulfilled inclusion criteria apixaban (27.3%), rivaroxaban (34.9%) and enoxaparin (37.7%), and 38 were excluded. Patients median age was 66.5 years at GICA diagnosis and 67 years at CAVTE event, with 62% males, 80% Caucasian, 70% stage IV, pancreatic cancer (40.5%), 30% Khorana Score (≥ 3 points), and 43.5% on active chemotherapy. Sixty-four percent of patients completed anticoagulation therapy (range 1 to 43 mo). Recurrent VTE at 6 mo was noted in 7.5% (n = 3), 6.8% (n = 2) and 2.7% (n = 1) of patients on enoxaparin, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively (all P = NS). MB at 6 mo were 5% (n = 2) for enoxaparin, 6.8% (n = 2) for apixaban and 21.6% (n = 8) for rivaroxaban (overall P = 0.048; vs LMWH P = 0.0423; all other P = NS). Significant predictors of a primary or secondary outcome for all anticoagulation therapies included: Active systemic treatment (OR = 5.1, 95%CI: 1.3-19.3), high Khorana Score [≥ 3 points] (OR = 5.5, 95%CI: 1.7-17.1), active smoker (OR = 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1-21.0), pancreatic cancer (OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 1.9-23.2), and stage IV disease (OR = 9.9, 95%CI: 1.2-79.1).ConclusionRivaroxaban compared to apixaban and enoxaparin had a significantly higher risk of MB on GICA-VTE patients with equivocal efficacy.
| S-EPMC6815918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Compared with the general population, cancer patients with VTE have higher rates of both VTE recurrence and bleeding. While low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the mainstay of treatment for cancer-associated VTE for over a decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic option due to their ease of administration and because they do not require laboratory monitoring. Several large randomized clinical trials have been performed or are ongoing at the time of writing, comparing DOACs with LMWH in this population. Three of these trials have thus far been published and suggest that DOACs are a reasonable alternative to LMWH for management of cancer-associated VTE. Despite the advantages offered by DOACs, these agents may not be appropriate for certain patient groups owing to increased risk of bleeding, organ compromise, extremes of weight, and other issues. Finally, data are emerging suggesting that DOACs may be useful for primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients in conjunction with validated risk assessment scores. In this evidence-based review, data for the use of DOACs to treat cancer-associated VTE will be examined, focusing on efficacy, safety, and timing of treatment. Guidance on choosing the optimal anticoagulant for a given patient is also offered.
| S-EPMC6593743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use compared with warfarin use for the treatment of venous thromboembolism.Design Retrospective matched cohort study conducted between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2016.Setting Community based, using healthcare data from six jurisdictions in Canada and the United States.Participants 59?525 adults (12?489 DOAC users; 47?036 warfarin users) with a new diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and a prescription for a DOAC or warfarin within 30 days of diagnosis.Main outcome measures Outcomes included hospital admission or emergency department visit for major bleeding and all cause mortality within 90 days after starting treatment. Propensity score matching and shared frailty models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios of the outcomes comparing DOACs with warfarin. Analyses were conducted independently at each site, with meta-analytical methods used to estimate pooled hazard ratios across sites.Results Of the 59?525 participants, 1967 (3.3%) had a major bleed and 1029 (1.7%) died over a mean follow-up of 85.2 days. The risk of major bleeding was similar for DOAC compared with warfarin use (pooled hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.03), with the overall direction of the association favouring DOAC use. No difference was found in the risk of death (pooled hazard ratio 0.99, 0.84 to 1.16) for DOACs compared with warfarin use. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across centres, between patients with and without chronic kidney disease, across age groups, or between male and female patients.Conclusions In this analysis of adults with incident venous thromboembolism, treatment with DOACs, compared with warfarin, was not associated with an increased risk of major bleeding or all cause mortality in the first 90 days of treatment.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT02833987.
| S-EPMC5641962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulant therapies to prevent a second recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains undetermined. We aimed to compare the benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin therapies in preventing second recurrent VTE and major bleeding events among patients with a recurrent VTE episode following anticoagulation therapy for incident VTE. A retrospective cohort analysis of two large national insurance claims databases was conducted for patients with two episodes of VTE. Cox proportional hazards models were used after inverse probability treatment weighting to compare risks of second recurrent VTE and major bleeding events. Compared with warfarin, DOAC therapy was associated with significantly decreased risk of second recurrent VTE with no significant difference in risk of major bleeding events. Our findings suggest that, compared with warfarin, DOACs may reduce risk of second VTE recurrence among patients who have experienced one recurrence.
| S-EPMC10264957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly treated with oral anticoagulants, including warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are associated with favorable treatment satisfaction, few studies have assessed whether quality of life differs between DOAC and warfarin users.Materials and methodsWe invited adults enrolled in two California-based integrated health care delivery systems and with a history of VTE between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 to complete a survey on their experience with anticoagulants. Health-related quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the RAND 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), which measures QOL in 2 general component scores (physical and mental). We used multivariable linear regression to compare mean QOL component scores between DOAC-users and warfarin-users, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics.ResultsOverall, 2230 patients (43.1 % women and 31.8 % >75 years of age) taking anticoagulants answered at least 1 question on the SF-36, 975 taking DOACs and 1255 taking warfarin. After adjustment for patient-level factors, there were no significant differences in either physical component scores (39.2 v 38.3, p = 0.24) or mental component scores (48.5 v 49.0, p = 0.42) between DOAC and warfarin users.ConclusionsHealth-related QOL did not significantly differ between DOAC and warfarin users with a history of VTE.
| S-EPMC10537975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSeveral trials had compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin for acute venous thromboembolism, but the results were incomplete. This updated review comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised control trials. Six databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2018.SettingAdult patients had got non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants or warfarin for venous thromboembolism.ParticipantsRandomised control trials that compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin.Main outcome measuresThe efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants .ResultsSeven studies involving 29,879 cases were included, among which 14,943 cases were assigned to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group and 14,936 cases to warfarin group. Meta-analysis showed that compared with warfarin, recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.11]), death related to venous thromboembolism or fatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.00 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.60]), symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (odds ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.09]), symptomatic nonfatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.03 [(95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.30]) and all deaths (odds ratio 0.92 [95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.12]) are similar in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group, but major bleeding event (odds ratio 0.61 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.75]) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (odds ratio [95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.85]) are less in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group. .ConclusionsFor the treatment of venous thromboembolism, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants is as effective as warfarin, and has a better safety profile than warfarin.
| S-EPMC8207293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment 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.
| S-EPMC8605968 | biostudies-literature