The efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH for cancer-associated thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tao DL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086370 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines have supported the use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE). However, recent trials have reported increased bleeding risks associated with DOACs usage, raising concerns regarding its efficacy.ObjectivesThe authors conducted a meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of DOACs for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients, compared with Low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) and Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines from inception to June 17th, 2021.The primary outcomes studied were VTE recurrence and major bleeding.ResultsA total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling almost 7000 patients were included. Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced VTE Recurrence in cancer patients when compared to patients treated with LMWH or VKAs (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83; P = 0.002; I2 = 26%). There were no statistically significant differences for major bleeding (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.33; P = 0.50; I2 = 34%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.91; P = 0.35; I2 = 66%), pulmonary embolism (HR 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.06; P = 0.10; I2 = 7%), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.12; P = 0.78; I2 = 1%), between DOACs and LMWH.ConclusionThis analysis shows that DOACs are the optimal regimen to treat Ca-VTE. They have a similar to slightly increased bleeding risk compared with LMWH and are a safer alternative to VKAs.
| S-EPMC9289311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is unclear if direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective and safe alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWHs) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aim to synthesize existing literature that compared DOACs versus LMWHs in this high-risk population. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a systematic review using EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL for all observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (PROSPERO: CRD42017080898). Two authors independently reviewed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed bias. Primary outcomes included 6-month recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) and mortality. RESULTS:We screened 426 articles, reviewed 25 in full-text, and selected 13 and 2 for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Based on a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs, DOACs had lower 6-month recurrent VTE (42/725) when compared to LMWH (64/727) (RR: 0.65 (0.42-1.01)). However, DOACs had higher major bleeding (40/725) when compared to LMWH (23/727) (RR 1.74 (1.05-2.88)). Similarly, CRNMB was higher (RR 2.31 (0.85-6.28)) for patients receiving DOACs. There was no difference in mortality (RR 1.03 (0.85-1.26)). Observational studies were heterogeneous with high risks of bias but showed recurrent VTE rates consistent with the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS:DOACs were more effective than LMWHs to prevent recurrent VTE but were associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding as well as a trend toward more CRNMB. The absolute risk differences were small (2-3%) for both primary outcomes and may reflect better compliance with DOACs than LMWHs.
| S-EPMC6119655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
| S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections often have macrovascular or microvascular thrombosis and inflammation, which are known to be associated with a poor prognosis. Heparin has been hypothesized that administration of heparin with treatment dose rather than prophylactic dose for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19 patients.MethodsStudies comparing therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation with prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients were eligible. Mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding were the primary outcomes. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase were searched up to July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to disease severity.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,678 patients and four cohort studies with 1,080 patients were included in this review. In the RCTs, the therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was associated with significant reductions in the occurrence of thromboembolic events (5 studies, n=4,664; relative risk [RR], 0.72; P=0.01), and a significant increase in bleeding events (5 studies, n=4,667; RR, 1.88; P=0.004). In the moderate patients, therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was more beneficial than prophylactic anticoagulation in terms of thromboembolic events, but showed significantly higher bleeding events. In the severe patients, the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in the therapeutic or intermediate.ConclusionsThe study findings suggest that prophylactic anticoagulant treatment should be used in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection groups. Further studies are needed to determine more individualized anticoagulation guidance for all COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC10265420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more effective and safer than UFH. Further, a comparison of the effectiveness of LMWH in preventing thrombosis at different locations and different degrees of spinal cord injury has also not been clearly defined.Materials and methodsCohort studies comparing the use of LMWH and UFH in the prevention of lower limb venous thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury were identified using PubMed. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed using forest plots. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The main results of the study were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsA total of five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies compared the effectiveness and safety of LMWH and UFH in preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. No significant differences were found between the therapeutic effects of the two drugs, and the summary RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.42-4.16; P = 0.63). There was also no significant difference in the risk of bleeding between the two medications, and the aggregate RR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.55-1.12; P = 0.18). When comparing the efficacy of LMWH in preventing thrombosis in different segments and different degrees of spinal cord injury, no significant differences were found.ConclusionsThe results of this analysis show that compared with UFH, LMWH has no obvious advantages in efficacy nor risk prevention, and there is no evident difference in the prevention of thrombosis for patients with injuries at different spinal cord segments.
| S-EPMC8048068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published. METHODS: Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, we extracted the number and type of major complications (defined as those requiring any additional medical or surgical intervention). Data were pooled, using random-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: We found 16 studies that provided data on 551 patients. The median surveillance period was 6 months (range: 3-12). The median of mean POEM duration was 156 minutes (range: 42-112). Median myotomy length was 10?cm (range: 6-14). Technical and clinical success were reported in 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 93% (407/428; 95% CI: 90-95%). No heterogeneity (I (2?)=?0%) or publication bias was present in both estimates. When limiting the analysis only to adverse events that require medical or surgical interventions, major adverse events occurred in 14% (95% CI: 11-17%); however, only one patient needed post-POEM surgery (0.2%; 95% CI: 0-0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: POEM appeared to be a highly feasible and effective endoscopic treatment for achalasia. Despite POEM being apparently associated with relatively high morbidity, most patients are successfully managed conservatively, so that POEM appears as a very safe procedure; however, POEM should only be performed in centers able to treat POEM complications, such as pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum.
| S-EPMC4528214 | biostudies-other
Project description:Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage or endoscopic biliary stenting) is more effective. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.We conducted a literature search of EMBASE databases, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant available articles that were published in English, and we then compared ENBD and EBS in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The preoperative cholangitis rate, the preoperative pancreatitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and morbidity were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect on dichotomous variables, and the pooled analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.Seven published studies (n?=?925 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We determined that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR?=?0.35, 95% CI?=?0.25-0.51, P?<?0.0001), the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (OR?=?0.38, 95% CI?=?0.18-0.82, P?=?0.01), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR?=?0.39, 95% CI?=?0.28-0.56, P?<?0.0001), and morbidity (OR?=?0.47, 95% CI?=?0.27-0.82, P?=?0.008) compared with patients who received EBS.The current meta-analysis suggests that ENBD is better than EBS for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, and morbidity. However, a limitation is that there are no data from randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC5120904 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and Objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dalteparin and apixaban, have demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, more comparative research of these drugs is still needed. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of apixaban compared to dalteparin in reducing recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding associated with cancer. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials databases up to 5 January 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing apixaban versus dalteparin as treatment for cancer-associated VTE. Five studies were included. Effects according to meta-analyses were reported as relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: It was found that 33 of 734 (4.5%) patients treated with apixaban and 56 of 767 (7.3%) with dalteparin had recurrent VTE as the efficacy outcome (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15-1.58, I2 38%). Major bleeding occurred in 25 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (3.4%) and 27 of 767 with dalteparin (3.5%) (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31-5.27, I2 59%). Likewise, clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 64 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (8.7%) and 46 of 767 (5.9%) with dalteparin (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19, I2 0%). Conclusions: Apixaban showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE than dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE, but without statistical significance. No statistical significance was observed in clinically relevant major or non-major bleeding.
| S-EPMC10607997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with cirrhotic PVT, and compare differences in efficacy and safety among different anticoagulants.MethodsWe comprehensively searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2022 for studies using anticoagulants for cirrhotic PVT. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results3 RCTs and 14 cohort studies involving 1270 patients were included. Anticoagulant therapy can increase the recanalization rate compared with non-anticoagulation therapy (OR 4.44, 95% CI 3.11-6.32, I2 = 2.5%) and can decrease the extension rate of cirrhotic PVT (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.62, I2 = 41.0%), without increasing the incidence of total bleeding (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75-1.97, I2 = 9.8%), major bleeding (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49-1.95, I2 = 19.7%), and variceal bleeding (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-1.01, I2 = 39.9%). Subgroup analysis showed that VKA, LMWH, and DOACs could increase the recanalization rate of PVT and were not associated with the risk of bleeding. Studies that compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin directly showed that the recanalization rate of PVT in the DOACs group might be higher than that in the warfarin group (OR 30.99, 95% CI 7.39-129.87, I2 = 0.0%), and there was no difference in the rate of total bleeding (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01-8.65, I2 = 79.6%).ConclusionsAnticoagulants are safe and effective in patients with cirrhotic PVT. The rate of PVT recanalization associated with DOACs may be higher than warfarin.
| S-EPMC9168872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and frailty are a considerable group in clinical practice. However, existing studies provide insufficient evidence of anticoagulation strategies for these patients. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for these patients.MethodsRandomized controlled trials or observational studies reporting the data about the DOACs and warfarin therapy among frail AF patients were included. The search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2022. Frailty was defined using the most widely used claims-based frailty index or the cumulative deficit model-based frailty index.ResultsA total of 4 studies involving 835,520 patients were included. Compared with warfarin, DOACs therapy reduced the risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.69-0.90), ischemic stroke (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.71-0.87), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.35-0.76), and all-cause death (HR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.84-0.96). In safety outcomes, DOACs was significantly associated with reduced risks of major bleeding (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.64-0.97) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.52-0.65) compared to warfarin, but there were no statistically differences in gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.73-1.29).ConclusionsDOACs exerted superior effectiveness and safety outcome than warfarin in AF patients with frailty.
| S-EPMC9263568 | biostudies-literature