Dataset Information

How I treat cancer-associated thrombosis.

ABSTRACT: Patients with cancer are at an increased risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition, an increasing number of patients with incidental thromboembolic events have been recorded in clinical practice. Therapeutic anticoagulation is crucial to prevent thrombus progression and reduce risk of recurrence; however, this comes at the price of an increased bleeding risk, which necessitates a personalised approach to choose the most appropriate type of therapy. Over the last decade, low-molecular-weight heparin has been the preferred anticoagulant agent for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis due to better efficacy and similar safety profile compared with vitamin K antagonists. While direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have emerged as new option for treatment of VTE in a general population, only limited data have been available specifically for patients with cancer until recently. Randomised, controlled trials have now been published, establishing DOAC as an alternative for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. However, the improvement in the therapeutic armamentarium is accompanied by a number of special considerations. For instance, risk of bleeding is elevated in patients with cancer-associated VTE receiving DOAC, especially in certain tumour types (eg, gastrointestinal), and no guidance exists regarding their use in patients with severe thrombocytopaenia. Furthermore, DOAC are prone to certain drug-drug interactions and their effect might be altered due to nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy. Here, we provide guidance on how to treat cancer-associated VTE and how new evidence from randomised controlled trials can be implemented in clinical practice. There are still clinical scenarios where robust evidence is lacking and treatment recommendations are based on extrapolations from other populations or expert opinion only. Therefore, additional research in special subpopulations is needed to optimise management of patients in challenging clinical scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Moik F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7003382 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How I treat cancer-associated thrombosis.

Moik Florian F Pabinger Ingrid I Ay Cihan C

ESMO open 20200101 1

Patients with cancer are at an increased risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition, an increasing number of patients with incidental thromboembolic events have been recorded in clinical practice. Therapeutic anticoagulation is crucial to prevent thrombus progression and reduce risk of recurrence; however, this comes at the price of an increased bleeding risk, which necessitates a personalised approach to choose the most appropriate type of therapy. Over the last decade, low-m ...[more]

PMID: 31958288

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).ObjectiveTo determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH.DesignCohort-state transition decision analytic model.Data sourcesNetwork meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH.Target populationAdult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveHealth care sector.InterventionStrategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT.Outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.Results of base-case analysisIn the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY.Results of sensitivity analysisResults were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective.LimitationsAn assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled.ConclusionThe 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.Primary funding sourceNone.

Dataset Information

How I treat cancer-associated thrombosis.

Publications

How I treat cancer-associated thrombosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets