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 | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH for cancer-associated thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tao Derrick L DL Olson Sven R SR DeLoughery Thomas G TG Shatzel Joseph J JJ
European journal of haematology 20200618 3
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:BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.MethodsLiterature was searched in databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible studies were included, and data were collected independently by 2 reviewers. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the treatment of VTE in cancer patients. The odds ratios (ORs) of different DOACs compared with LMWHs for VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) recurrence, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), were calculated in meta-analyses and subgroup analyses.ResultsA total of 18 articles were eligible for analyses, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective studies. Both RCTs and retrospective studies confirmed that DOACs decreased the risk of VTE recurrence [RCTs: OR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90] and DVT recurrence (RCTs: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63), but not PE recurrence or fatal PE in cancer patients. Subgroup analyses revealed an important role of rivaroxaban in decreasing recurrent VTE. Meanwhile, major bleeding events were not increased in the DOAC group, but the risks of CRNMBs were significantly elevated. Subgroup analyses confirmed the role of rivaroxaban in increasing the risk of major bleeding events and CRNMBs.ConclusionsCompared with LMWHs, DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) significantly reduce the risk of VTE and DVT, but not PE recurrence, in patients with cancer. Although DOACs did not increase the major bleeding events in pooled analysis, rivaroxaban showed an elevated risk of this adverse effect in subgroup analysis. In addition, the risk of CRNMB events was increased after the application of DOACs including rivaroxaban.
| S-EPMC7867886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an endoscopic technique whereby surgical interventions can be performed with a flexible endoscope passed through a natural orifice (mouth, vulva, urethra, anus) then through a transluminal opening of the stomach, vagina, bladder, or colon. Although in the early stage of research and development, NOTES has been clinically applied across the globe, above all the transvaginal cholecystectomy is among the most frequently performed procedures. In the existing 2 types of transvaginal routes, the hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (NC) is more likely to be accepted. However, there has been controversy regarding the safety outcomes of hybrid NC in comparison with classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the characteristics between NC and classical LC.A meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing NC with classical LC was performed to evaluate the safety outcomes including wound complications, other postoperative complications and intraoperative conversion between the 2 groups.Pooling 3 randomized controlled trials (n=157) and 7 nonrandomized trial (n=593) demonstrated that the rates of wound complications and other postoperative complications in NC group did not significantly differ from those of classical LC group [wound complications: ratio difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04to 0.01, P=0.23; other postoperative complication: RD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02; P=0.6]. The intraoperative conversion rate in NC groups was higher than that of LC groups (RD=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; P=0.02).There is no significate difference between the safety of NC and laparoscope cholecystectomy. NC is associated with a higher rate of intraoperative conversion when compared with LC. It is worthy of further promotion and validation in clinical settings.
| S-EPMC5054957 | biostudies-other
Project description:In the past decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven to be the best option for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Nevertheless, evidence for the use of DOACs for anticoagulation in valvular atrial fibrillation, particularly after aortic valve replacement, remains inadequate. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We conducted a comprehensive search of online databases, and 11 studies were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included stroke and cardiovascular death. The safe endpoint is major and/or life-threatening bleeding. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the different follow-up time of each study. Random-effects models were used for all outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using χ2 tests and quantified using I2 statistics. Patients in the DOACs group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with patients in the VKAs group (relative risk [RR]: 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.43, p = .04). This benefit may be greater with longer follow-up. In a subgroup analysis based on the length of follow-up, a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality was found in the DOACs group in the subgroup with a follow-up time of >12 months (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.07-2.09, p = .001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in cardiovascular death, stroke, and major and/or life-threatening bleeding. For patients with atrial fibrillation after TAVR, the use of DOACs may be superior to VKAs, and the benefit may be greater with longer follow-up. The anticoagulant strategy for atrial fibrillation after TAVR is a valuable direction for future research.
| S-EPMC9574758 | biostudies-literature
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, albeit with no statistical difference. Statistical significance was observed for no major clinically relevant bleeding but not for major bleeding.
| S-EPMC10607997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is currently a lack of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of Andexanet alpha and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in anticoagulation reversal of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary aim of our systematic review was to verify which drug is more effective in reducing short-term all-cause mortality. The secondary aim was to determine which of the two reverting strategies is less affected by thromboembolic events.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.ResultsTwenty-two studies were analysed in the systematic review and quantitative synthesis. In all-cause short-term mortality, Andexanet alpha showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71(95% CI 0.37-1.34) in RCTs and PSMs, compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 81%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.01) for the common effects model and 0.82 (95% CI 0.63-1.07) for the random effects model (I2 = 34.2%). Regarding the incidence of thromboembolic events, for RCTs and PSMs, the common and the random effects model exhibited a RR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.09-2.77), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.01-2.89), respectively, for Andexanet alpha compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 0%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.69) for the common effects model and 1.18 (95% CI 0.86-1.62) for the random effects model (I2 = 0%).ConclusionConsidering a large group of both retrospective and controlled studies, Andexanet alpha did not show a statistically significant advantage over 4F-PCC in terms of mortality. In the analysis of the controlled studies alone, Andexanet alpha is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024548768.
| S-EPMC11225147 | biostudies-literature