Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants with antiplatelet agents in patients with venous thromboembolism: A multi-database cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) often have comorbidities that require use of antiplatelets. However, evidence on the effects of concomitant use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and antiplatelets in this high-risk population is scarce. Our international, multi-database cohort study assessed the real-world effectiveness and safety of concomitant use of DOACs and antiplatelets among patients with VTE.

Methods

We assembled two population-based cohorts using administrative health care databases from Québec and Germany. We included patients with incident VTE who initiated treatment with a DOAC or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), while being exposed to antiplatelets (acetylsalicylic acid, clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel, dipyridamole). The study period spanned from 2012 to 2016 (Québec) or 2019 (Germany). Concomitant use of DOACs and antiplatelets was compared with concomitant use of VKAs and antiplatelets, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance exposure groups. Cox proportional hazards models estimated site-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of major bleeding, all-cause mortality (primary outcomes), and recurrent VTE (secondary outcome). Site-specific estimates were meta-analyzed using random-effects models.

Results

Overall, 4971 patients with VTE initiated concomitant use of a DOAC (n = 2289) or a VKA (n = 2682) and antiplatelets. Compared with concomitant use of VKAs and antiplatelets, concomitant use of DOACs and antiplatelets was associated with similar risks of major bleeding (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.46-1.45), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.79), and recurrent VTE (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.40-2.27).

Conclusions

Among patients with VTE using antiplatelets, there were no major differences in effectiveness and safety between DOACs and VKAs.

SUBMITTER: Douros A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8749078 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed. Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used. Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (-187017.543, -284,674.922, and -9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (-216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV. Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

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.

Project description:Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known regarding pharmacists' practice patterns and preferences in clinical areas of contention, such as initiation dosing, obesity, and renal impairment. Objective: To determine pharmacist trends in practice regarding DOACs for the treatment of VTE overall and within areas of clinical controversy. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to pharmacists in the United States through national and state pharmacy organizations. Responses were collected for 30 days. Results: One hundred fifty-three complete responses were submitted. The majority of pharmacists preferred apixaban (90.2%) for the oral treatment of venous thromboembolism. When initiating apixaban or rivaroxaban for a new VTE, 76% and 64% of pharmacists surveyed, respectively, state the duration of the initiation dose phases are reduced if the patient received parenteral anticoagulation. Fifty-eight percent of pharmacists used body mass index to evaluate the appropriateness of DOACs in obese patients whereas 42% used total body weight. Preference for rivaroxaban (31.4%) was higher in this population compared to the global population (10%). Apixaban was preferred for patients with renal impairment (92.2%). However, as creatinine clearance as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation (CrCl) reduced to ≤15 milliliters/minute (mL/min), preference for warfarin increased (36%). Conclusion: This national survey of pharmacists demonstrated an overall preference for apixaban and significant variability in practice patterns regarding DOACs for patients with new VTE, patients with obesity, and patients with renal impairment. Further research is warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOAC initiation dosing phase modifications. Prospective evaluations of DOACs in obese and renal dysfunction populations would confirm the safety and efficacy of DOACs in these populations.

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.