Direct oral anti-coagulants compared with vitamin-K inhibitors and low-molecular-weight-heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A meta-analysis study

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Versus Warfarin in Adult Cancer Patients as a Precision Medicine for Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a condition often seen in patients diagnosed with cancer and is recognized as a predictor of poor outcomes in these patients. The probability of VTE recurring is generally higher in people with cancer than in those without; hence, addressing this issue is essential when making healthcare decisions. Therefore, our systematic review was primarily designed to compare low-weight- molecular heparin (LMWH) to warfarin in reducing recurrent VTE among cancer patients. However, other outcomes were also evaluated, such as mortality and bleeding events observed more in cancer patients. The selection of relevant articles was carried out using a database search and a manual search, which involved reviewing reference lists of articles eligible for inclusion in the current review. The methodological quality of each included study was then assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool in the Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Additionally, pooled results were examined using the Review Manager software and presented as forest plots. Our search of electronic databases elicited a total of 2163 articles, of which only six were deemed eligible for inclusion and analysis. Data pooled from the six studies demonstrated the effectiveness of LMWH in minimizing the reoccurrence of VTE over warfarin [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 - 0.95; p = 0.03]. However, LMWH had a similar effect statistically as warfarin on the major bleeding events (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.62 - 1.77; p = 0.85), minor bleeding events (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54 - 1.20; p = 0.28), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.88 - 1.13; p = 0.99). While LMWH demonstrated its effectiveness in minimizing the incidence of VTE recurrence over warfarin in cancer patients, it had no statistical difference in terms of mortality or bleeding events when compared to warfarin. Based on our findings, we recommend that LMWH continues to be used as a first-line treatment regimen to mitigate recurrent VTE in cancer patients.

Net clinical benefit of DOACs vs. usual anticoagulation treatment in venous thromboembolism and active cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with active cancer are at high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Usual treatment includes low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), while vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have also been used as substitutes for LMWH. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are considered a beneficial alternative to the usual treatment but are accompanied by an increased rate of bleeding compared to LMWH. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and harms under a common denomination, namely the net clinical benefit (NCB), between DOACs and usual anticoagulation. The primary outcome was NCB-1, defined as non-fatal VTE, major non-fatal bleedings, and all-cause mortality). Co-primary outcomes were 1) NCB-2 (i.e., NCB-1 and clinically relevant non-major bleedings) and 2) NCB-3 (i.e., fatal or non-fatal VTE and major bleedings). A random-effects model was used to calculate outcome risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number CRD42021284238. We selected 8 studies (n = 4,4461 patients; mean follow-up, 6 months). The NCB-1 and -2 were not different between DOACs and usual anticoagulation, while the NCB-3 showed a reduction of 28% (95% CI, 10-42%), favoring DOACs. Recurrent VTE was reduced by 40% (95% CI, 25-53%) with DOACs than the usual treatment. Different bleeding outcomes and all-cause mortality were not different between treatments. All primary outcomes did not differ between DOACs and LMWH, while NCB-2 and NCB-3 were reduced with DOACs than VKAs. The NCB of DOACs was similar or more favorable to usual anticoagulation in patients with active cancer due to a substantial reduction of VTE and no bleeding excess.

Factor Xa inhibitor for venous thromboembolism management in patient with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: An earlier systematic review reported no differences in the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding between factor Xa inhibitors and standard anticoagulation. The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of factor Xa inhibitors for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), specifically in patients with cancer, as there were more randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available. Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically screened for all RCTs assessing factor Xa inhibitor efficacy for VTE management in cancer patients. Using RevMan 5.3, we performed a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects meta-analysis of the following outcomes: recurrent VTE, VTE events, and major bleeding rates. Results: We identified 11 studies involving 7,965 patients. Factor Xa inhibitors were superior in preventing VTE recurrence, compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.80; P < 0.01) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.78; P < 0.01). As prophylaxis, factor Xa inhibitors had a similar rate of VTE compared to VKAs (OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.31-3.77]; P = 0.90) and a lower rate compared to placebo (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.35-0.81]; P < 0.01). Major bleeding rates were higher with factor Xa inhibitors than with LMWHs (OR 1.34 [95% CI 0.83-2.18]; P = 0.23), but significantly lower than VKAs (OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55-0.92]; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Factor Xa inhibitors are effective for VTE management in patients with cancer; however, they are also associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to LMWH, but decreased when compared to VKA.

Are direct oral anticoagulants an economically attractive alternative to low molecular weight heparins in lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism management?

Venous thromboembolism is highly prevalent in lung cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparins are recommended for long term treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism. Direct oral anticoagulants are however an interesting alternative as they are administered orally and don't require monitoring. There are currently studies comparing both their efficacy and tolerance for cancer patients and more and more guidelines suggest considering direct oral anticoagulants for cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the budgetary impact that direct oral anticoagulants use would have for lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention in France. An economic model was made to evaluate the cost of venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention among patients with primary lung cancer in France by two strategies: current guidelines versus direct oral anticoagulants use. The model was fed with clinical and economic data extracted from the French national health information system. The analysis was conducted from the national mandatory Health insurance point of view. The time horizon of the study was the evaluation of the annual management cost. Lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism management's mean cost was estimated of 836€ per patient, that is a total cost of about 40 million euros per year at a national level. A 76% decrease of this cost can be expected with direct oral anticoagulants use. However, despite their benefits, these treatments raise new issues (medication interactions, bleeding management), and would likely not be recommended for all patients.

Direct oral anticoagulants more effective than low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thrombo-embolism in cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

In the recent past, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the first choice in the treatment of cancer related venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Evidence supporting the preferential use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer, instead, is less robust so far. We therefore aimed to assess in an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials whether the use of DOACs may be associated with a more favorable profile when compared to LMWH. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs enrolling patients with VTE and cancer. We assessed Mantel-Haenszel pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for recurrence of VTE, major bleeding, and mortality comparing subjects treated with DOACs with those with LMWH. After study selection, three RCTs (HOKUSAI-Cancer, SELECT-D and ADAM-VTE) were included for the analysis with an overall population of 1739 patients. DOACs patients had a lower incidence of 6-month recurrent VTE when compared to LMWHs (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.79; p < 0.001). Incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between DOACs and LMWH treated patients (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95-2.47, p = n.s.), and mortality rates were comparable (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-2.47, p = n.s.). In a meta-analysis of RCTs therapy with DOACs was superior to LMWH in terms of efficacy and lower recurrence of VTE with a comparable safety profile in terms of bleeding events and complications.

Direct oral anticoagulant use in gynecologic oncology: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Practice Statement

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in women with gynecologic malignancies. This practice statement provides clinical data and overall quality of evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this patient population. Specifically, it reviews patient selection, safety measures, and nuances of perioperative use of these medications. The scope of this document is limited to DOAC use in gynecologic oncology rather than a broad discussion of VTE prophylaxis and management in general. The following recommendations and examination of extant data are based on DOAC trials conducted primarily in mixed populations with different cancer subtypes. Many of these trials include few, or no, women with gynecologic cancer. However, because there is very limited data in gynecologic cancer-specific populations, the results of these studies represent the best available evidence to support treatment recommendations in our patients. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee believe that the results of these studies may be extrapolated, with caution, to VTE treatment and prophylaxis for patients with gynecologic cancer.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: safety issues in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are increasingly used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Since NOACs are predominantly used in the elderly with AF at high risk for stroke and bleeding and with comorbidities requiring polypharmacy, it is important to assess their safety and efficacy in this population.

AREAS COVERED

We review changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics observed with senescence and the effect on NOACs and drug and food interactions. We also provide an update on challenges related to NOAC use in situations that increases the risk for bleeding or require temporary discontinuation and address practical issues in the elderly AF patients managed on NOACs. Clinical studies and trials with cardiovascular outcomes reported from January 1990 to August 2020 were identified through the Medline database using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database.

EXPERT OPINION

NOACs are highly effective in preventing stroke in AF patients with non-inferior or superior efficacy to warfarin, with reduced risk of major bleeding. However, in the older-elderly, evidence comes mainly from observational studies or extrapolation from studies in populations with minimal functional limitations or comorbidities. The high upfront cost and out-of-pocket expense for copayment or deductibles also limit the use of this effective therapy in a substantial number of patients. The cost reduction may further improve long-term use for NOACs in stroke prevention in elderly patients with AF.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of cancer associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be good alternatives to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). We conducted a meta-analysis of ten randomized clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with CAT. All had study populations composed in entirety or in part of patients with CAT. The primary outcome (efficacy) was recurrent VTE and the secondary outcomes (safety outcomes) included major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and all bleeding (major bleeding + CRNMB). Participants treated with DOACs had lower risk of recurrent VTE, overall (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.79; p < 0.0001), compared to LMWH (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.83; p = 0.003), but not compared to VKA (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.44-1.06; p = 0.09). Compared to LMWH, DOACs showed no difference in major bleeding risk (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78-2.18; p = 0.31), though had higher risk of CRNMB (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.26; p = 0.008) and all bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.10-2.01; p = 0.010). These results indicate that DOACs are more effective than LMWH for prevention of recurrent VTE with CAT though carry an increased risk for non-major bleeding compared to standard of care, LMWH.

Advanced delivery strategies facilitating oral absorption of heparins

Heparins show great anticoagulant effect with few side effects, and are administered by subcutaneous or intravenous route in clinics. To improve patient compliance, oral administration is an alternative route. Nonetheless, oral administration of heparins still faces enormous challenges due to the multiple obstacles. This review briefly analyzes a series of barriers ranging from poorly physicochemical properties of heparins, to harsh biological barriers including gastrointestinal degradation and pre-systemic metabolism. Moreover, several approaches have been developed to overcome these obstacles, such as improving stability of heparins in the gastrointestinal tract, enhancing the intestinal epithelia permeability and facilitating lymphatic delivery of heparins. Overall, this review aims to provide insights concerning advanced delivery strategies facilitating oral absorption of heparins.

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74-7.52, p = 0.1482, I2 = 0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93-1.83, p = 0.1274, I2 = 0%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are still debated in the treatment of patients with cancer, and the optimal duration of therapy remains uncertain. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to retrieve studies on the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in treating patients with cancer from January 1980 to October 2018. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding. Our study included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies, together comprising 4509 patients with cancer. The pooled estimates indicated that DOACs led to a modest reduction recurrent VTE in the RCTs [RR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.96, P = 0.03] and in the observational studies (RR: 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.93, P = 0.011), without increasing the risk of major bleeding for observational studies (P = 0.805), but increased for RCTs (P = 0.017). The same trends were observed in the rivaroxaban subgroup. Moreover, subgroup analyses according to the treatment duration indicated that DOACs significantly reduced the incidence of recurrent VTE (P = 0.006 at 6 months; P < 0.001 at 12 months) without significant differences in major bleeding compared with LMWH at 6 or 12 months. Patients with cancer who received DOACs exhibited a significant reduction in recurrent VTE with no increased risk of major bleeding compared with LMWH. DOACs may be an alternative choice for long-term anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer.

Direct versus conventional anticoagulants for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis: a pooled and interaction analysis between observational studies and randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There are emerging observational studies (OSs) to assess real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). We conducted a pooled and interaction analysis to compare the treatment effect estimates of DOACs between OSs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We systematically searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for OSs and RCTs that reported recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and/or major bleeding events in CAT patients receiving DOACs and conventional anticoagulants [warfarin or low molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs)]. Relative risks (RRs) for OSs and RCTs were calculated using random-effects models separately, and interaction analyses were afterward applied to assess the comparability between OSs and RCTs.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristic was comparable between identified 10 OSs (35,142 patients) and 8 RCTs (2,602 patients). Overall, no significant difference of treatment effect estimates between OSs and RCTs was detected (Pinteraction: 0.42 for recurrent VTE; Pinteraction: 0.38 for major bleeding). DOACs significantly decreased the risk of recurrent VTE compared with conventional anticoagulants in CAT patients (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63-0.86, I2: 0% for OSs; RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49-0.86; I2: 0% for RCTs), without increasing major bleeding risk (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.07, I2: 24.0% for OSs; RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.72-1.88, I2: 26.2% for RCTs). Whereas, increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) was found with DOACs versus conventional anticoagulants in CAT patients (RR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.35-5.68, I2: 0% for RCTs). Analyses of subgroups, based on comparators and follow-up duration, did not significantly affect results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus conventional anticoagulants in CAT from OSs are in agreement with those from RCTs, confirming a low risk of recurrent VTE and similar risk of major bleeding in CAT patients receiving DOACs.

Comparison between direct factor Xa inhibitors and low-molecular-weight heparin for efficacy and safety in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A meta-analysis

Aim of the Study

The role of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients compared with the current standard of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) treatment remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct factor Xa inhibitors compared with those of LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Materials and Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science for potential randomized controlled clinical trials and retrospective cohort studies. Data on recurrent VTE (efficacy) and major and minor bleeding events (safety) were extracted, and the odds risks (OR) were analyzed using a random-effect model.

Results

A total of nine studies involving 4208 cancer patients with VTE were included in these analyses. Pooled analysis showed that direct factor Xa inhibitors were significantly superior to LMWH in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE (OR = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.82). There was no significant difference in the rate of major bleeding between the direct factor Xa inhibitor and LMWH treatments (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.94-1.65). However, the rate of minor bleeding events was higher when a direct factor Xa inhibitor was used instead of LMWH (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.05-3.07).

Conclusions

Direct factor Xa inhibitors are superior to LMWH in efficacy in the treatment of VTE in cancer patients, and the safety between the two regimens is comparable except for a slightly higher rate of minor bleeding when the former is used.

Practical considerations for the use of direct oral anticoagulants in oncology patients

Oncology patients are at a high risk of experiencing venous thromboembolism. Historically, venous thromboembolisms in cancer patients have been managed with low-molecular-weight heparin on the basis of the CLOT trial published in 2003. However, recent prospective data provide evidence for safe and effective direct oral anticoagulant use in this population. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate the current body of literature surrounding direct oral anticoagulant use in the oncology population and to highlight key practical considerations when prescribing these agents for patients with cancer.

The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation

The current manuscript is the second update of the original Practical Guide, published in 2013 [Heidbuchel et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-651; Heidbuchel et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1467-1507]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have emerged as the preferred choice, particularly in patients newly started on anticoagulation. Both physicians and patients are becoming more accustomed to the use of these drugs in clinical practice. However, many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these agents in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group identified 20 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 20 topics are as follows i.e., (1) Eligibility for NOACs; (2) Practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (3) Ensuring adherence to prescribed oral anticoagulant intake; (4) Switching between anticoagulant regimens; (5) Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of NOACs; (6) NOACs in patients with chronic kidney or advanced liver disease; (7) How to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (8) NOAC plasma level measurement: rare indications, precautions, and potential pitfalls; (9) How to deal with dosing errors; (10) What to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a potential risk of bleeding; (11) Management of bleeding under NOAC therapy; (12) Patients undergoing a planned invasive procedure, surgery or ablation; (13) Patients requiring an urgent surgical intervention; (14) Patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (15) Avoiding confusion with NOAC dosing across indications; (16) Cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (17) AF patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; (18) NOACs in special situations; (19) Anticoagulation in AF patients with a malignancy; and (20) Optimizing dose adjustments of VKA. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in different languages can be found on an EHRA website (www.NOACforAF.eu).

Multiple uses of forest plots in presenting analysis results in health research: A Tutorial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Forest plots are an important graphical method in meta-analyses used to show results from individual studies and pooled analyses. Forest plots are easy and straightforward to understand because they provide tabular and graphical information about estimates of comparisons or associations, corresponding precision, and statistical significance. This visual representation also makes it easier to see variations between individual study results. Forest plots are widely used in not only systematic reviews and meta-analyses but also observational studies and clinical trials. In this study, we aimed to show readers the various uses of forest plots in displaying analysis results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a tutorial type to show multiple uses of forest plots in meta-analyses, clinical trials, and observational studies according to the PICO (Population or Subgroup, Intervention or Exposure, Control, and Outcome) framework.

RESULTS

We introduced forest plots' structure, application, current practice, and research advances in health research. We provided some examples from the literature to show the various uses of forest plot-type graphics in health research including meta-analyses, clinical trials, and observational studies.

CONCLUSION

It is expected that our discussion of the current multiple uses of forest plots in meta-analyses, clinical trials, and observational studies provides a glimpse about their potential in displaying results in a way that makes comparisons between items easier.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond HOKUSAI

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent an attractive alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) since they avoid the burden of daily injections. Analyses in subgroups of cancer patients from large randomized trials suggested that DOACs were at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists, while indirect comparisons suggested that DOACs' efficacy and safety profile were comparable to those of LMWHs. In the randomized controlled HOKUSAI-VTE Cancer study, currently the only completed phase III trial on DOACs in CT patients, edoxaban was shown noninferior to dalteparin on the composite primary endpoint of time to first recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization. Study results suggest that both agents had comparable benefit/risk ratio in patients with CT. Even though this conclusion was valid from a strict statistical viewpoint, it was potentially misleading when interpreting benefit/risk ratios. Besides the obvious heterogeneity of the study population (e.g., 23% of patients no longer had cancer) and significantly different treatment durations between arms, secondary outcomes for efficacy were in favor of edoxaban for recurrent deep-vein thrombosis but not for recurrent pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding episodes were significantly more frequent in the edoxaban group, with an excess of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding episodes observed mainly but not only in patients with GI cancers. More research is needed regarding specific patients' profiles, cancer types, and treatment period to better clarify the respective roles of DOACs and LMWHs in CT patients.

Patients' experience and compliance with extended low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis post-surgery for gynecological cancer: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Gynaecological cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). There is limited information on patient experience and compliance with an extended low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis in this setting. The aim of this study was to assess patient compliance, satisfaction and experience with the extended low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis after major surgery for gynaecological cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted in a large tertiary center for gynaecological cancer between July 2017-March 2018. Consecutive patients undergoing surgery for gynaecological cancer who received low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis for four weeks following surgery were recruited. All participants received a log book to record all injections, side effects, and questionnaire to be completed at the end of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients completed and returned the VTE prophylaxis logbook and questionnaire. Sixty-six (62%) patients received low molecular weight heparin for 28 days, twenty-five (24%) for 26-27 days, and 15 (14%) for less than 26 days. The median number of days of therapy was 28 days (range; 12-28 days). Reasons for missed or stopped injections included: forgetfulness(n=12), medical procedures (n=6), pain (n=5), incorrect prescription (n=4), patient choice (n=3), cost (n=2), physician request (n=2), non-availability of person administering the injections (n=1) or unknown (n=5). Sixty-one (58%) patients self-administered the injections. Patients who had the injection performed by a third person were twice as likely to experience pain compared to patients who self-administered (OR 2.81, p=0.003). Eighty-nine (84%) patients self-reported side effects during low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis including: bruising (75%), pain after injections (49%), itchiness (9%), swelling (9%) or other (8%). Although 83 (78%) patients were satisfied with injections, 91 (86%) admitted they would much prefer a tablet form.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with standard recommended regimen of 28-days prophylaxis was completed by 62% of patients. Majority of patients (86%) reported a preference for a tablet form, if one was available.

Anticoagulant therapy for acute venous thrombo-embolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is usually recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) but this treatment requires burdensome daily injections. We did a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and LMWH in patients with CAT.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials comparing DOAC, VKA and LMWH in patients with CAT. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were computed for venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding complications.

Results

We identified 14 studies, including 4,661 patients. In pairwise comparison, DOAC were superior to LMWH to prevent VTE recurrence (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42–0.96) and LMWH was superior to VKA (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.40–0.70). The rate of major bleeding was higher with DOAC compared to LMWH (HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.11–2.87). In the network meta-analysis, DOAC had a lower, but non-significant, rate of VTE recurrence compared to LMWH (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.54–1.01). Both DOAC (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29–0.61) and LMWH (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44–0.75) were associated with lower rates of recurrence compared to VKA. No significant difference in major bleeding rate was observed in the network meta-analysis. Inconsistency was observed between pairwise and network meta-analysis comparisons for major bleeding.

Conclusions

DOAC are effective to prevent VTE recurrence in patients with CAT but are associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared to LMWH. The choice of anticoagulant should be personalised, taking into account the patient’s bleeding risk, including cancer site, and patient’s values and preferences.

Highlights from the ERS International Congress 2018: Assembly 13 - Pulmonary Vascular Diseases

The 2018 European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress in Paris, France, highlighted the subject of pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). 2018 was an exciting year for the PVD community as it was the first ERS International Congress since the formation of Assembly 13, which is dedicated to PVD, pulmonary embolism and the right ventricle. This article aims to summarise the high-quality studies presented at the 2018 Congress into four subject areas: the use of risk stratification in pulmonary arterial hypertension, the molecular mechanisms and treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PH), understanding and improving the right ventricle in PH, and finally, advances in the field of acute pulmonary embolus.

Position paper of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine (SIMI) on prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Cancer patients are at high risk of developing thrombotic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) [deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], and arterial thrombosis. DVT and PE represent the second leading cause of death in cancer patients; moreover, the development of thromboembolic events in cancer patients is linked to a greater need of hospitalization and frequency of side effects during treatment, in particular bleeding, and to an increased risk of recurrence during and following antithrombotic therapy. The thromboembolic risk may be different in different subgroups of cancer population, being highest in patients with metastatic disease, patients with pancreas, stomach, kidney or primary brain cancer, or during therapeutic interventions or surgery. This document focuses on several relevant topics including the epidemiology and pathogenesis of cancer-associated VTE, the current and future strategies of primary prevention and anticoagulant treatment, and the management of bleeding complications. The main literature data are discussed in detail, including, when available, evidence from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, international guidelines statements, the results of recently published trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low molecular weight heparin, and the design and aims of ongoing trials on prevention/treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with active malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are considered the standard of care for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer. We systematically searched Medline for potential randomized-control clinical trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses. For each study, data on recurrent VTE, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and major bleeding (MB) were extracted. Initially, a total of 1395 citations were identified. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria. The utilization of DOACs in patients with cancer showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence compared to LMWH or warfarin (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.88). Similar rates of major or CRNMB were observed between DOACs and LMWH or warfarin (RR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.75-1.33). There was no significant difference in the rate of MB between DOACs and LMWH or warfarin (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 0.71-2.44). Our results suggest that DOACs might reduce the incidence of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer without putting them at high risk for MB/CRNMB or MB. Our findings were mainly driven by the results of the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial. Given the level of investigated evidence, our findings should be interpreted with caution since the majority of the data were originated from sub-group analyses of large (RCTs). Future studies that are adequately powered are warranted to assess efficacy and safety data of DOACs for the treatment of VTE in patients with different types of cancer.

Electroconvulsive Therapy While Receiving OralAnticoagulation for Deep Venous Thrombosis:Report on Eight Cases and a Review of theLiterature

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is indicated for critical psychiatric conditions, which themselves constitute a risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) owing to prolonged immobility, dehydration, and venous stasis.

OBJECTIVE

We describe challenging instances of ECT implementation while taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

METHOD

We report on 8 patients receiving DOACs for DVT who were successfully treated with ECT at the University of Yamanashi Hospital. We also provide a literature review on this topic.

RESULTS

There were 6 female patients (the average age was 60.9+/-13.4 y.o.) and diagnoses included major depression, bipolar depression and schizophrenia. DOACs were edoxaban for 4 patients, rivaroxaban for 2, and apixaban for 2. A total of 92 ECT sessions were cautiously and safely completed in collaboration with multidisciplinary medical professionals without problematic adverse events, such as bleeding. A literature search found one case series of warfarin but currently available evidence is confined to sporadic case reports regarding ECT and DOACs for DVT. These reports were represented by successful implementation of ECT to patients receiving treatment with anticoagulants for DVT or thromboembolism. Ours is the first of a successful treatment with ECT while taking apixaban or edoxaban.

CONCLUSION

A clinical dilemma is that ECT is indicated for critical conditions that are likely to predispose patients to developing DVT. Paucity of data clearly highlights the need for more studies to support a contention that ECT, when carefully performed in consultation with other medical experts, is a viable treatment for those with DVT receiving oral anticoagulants.

Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: expert guidance

INTRODUCTION

Most of the current clinical guidelines recommend the use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins (LMWHs) for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The Hokusai VTE-cancer trial reported the first results of a direct comparison between a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), edoxaban, and LMWH in this setting.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to critically appraise the currently available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant agents for the long-term treatment of CAT and to provide an expert opinion and guidance in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the available evidence, DOACs represent a valid alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CAT for the majority of patients with active cancer. Currently, most solid evidence comes from the Hokusai VTE-cancer study, which showed that edoxaban is non-inferior to the LMWH dalteparin, with a trend toward fewer recurrent venous thromboembolic events, but with more major bleeding events. Similar findings were reported with rivaroxaban, although the study was not sufficiently powered to allow definitive conclusions. The majority of bleeding events occurred in the upper gastrointestinal tract and in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Thus, LMWH remains the preferred option for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Additional studies aimed to confirm these findings with other DOACs are now warranted.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

Net Clinical Benefit of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Trade-Off Analysis From 9 Randomized Controlled Trials

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), directly targeting the enzymatic activity of thrombin or factor Xa, have been shown to be as effective as and safer than traditional anticoagulation for VTE prophylaxis in no-cancer patients. However, related studies that focused on the anticoagulation in cancer patients are lacked, and almost no net clinical benefit (NCB) analyses that quantified both VTE events and bleeding events have been addressed in this fragile population. Therefore, we aim to investigate this issue using a systematic review and NCB analysis. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the VTE events and major bleeding of NOACs and traditional anticoagulants in patients with or without cancer. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of VTE and bleeding events were calculated using a random-effects model. The primacy outcome of narrow NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and major bleeding, with a weighting of 1.0. Similarly, the broad NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and clinically relevant bleeding. Heterogeneity was assessed through I² test and Q statistic, and subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of different patients (VTE patients or acutely ill patients), comparators (vitamin-K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin), and follow-up duration (≤6 months or >6 months). Overall, 9 RCTs including 41,454 patients were enrolled, of which 2,902 (7%) were cancer patients, and 38,552 (93%) were no-cancer patients; 20,712 (50%) were administrated with NOACs and 20,742 (50%) were administrated with traditional anticoagulants. The use of NOACs had a superior NCB than traditional anticoagulation in both cancer patients (OR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.85 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.61–0.91 for broad NCB) and no-cancer patients (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.54-0.96 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.67–1.04 for broad NCB), with the estimates mainly from VTE patients receiving long-term warfarin treatment. In conclusion, NOACs may represent a better NCB property compared to traditional anticoagulants in cancer patients who need long-term anticoagulation treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Anticoagulation is used to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients, but may be associated with an increased risk of bleeding. VTE recurrence and major bleeding were assessed in cancer patients treated for VTE with the most currently prescribed anticoagulants in clinical practice. Newly diagnosed cancer patients (first VTE 1/1/2013-05/31/2015) who initiated rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or warfarin were identified from Humana claims data and observed until end of eligibility or end of data availability. VTE recurrence was a hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of VTE ≥7 days after first VTE. Major bleeding events on treatment were identified using validated criteria. Cohorts were compared using Kaplan-Meier rates at 6 and 12 months and Cox proportional hazards models. Cohorts were adjusted for their differences at baseline. A total of 2428 patients (rivaroxaban: 707; LMWH: 660; warfarin: 1061) met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were well balanced after weighting. There was a trend for lower VTE recurrence rates in rivaroxaban users compared to LMWH users at 6 months (13.2% vs. 17.1%; P = .060) and significantly lower at 12 months (16.5% vs. 22.2%; P = .030) [HR: 0.72, 95% CI: (0.52-0.95); P = .024]. VTE recurrence rates were also lower for rivaroxaban than warfarin users at 6 months (13.2% vs. 17.5%; P = .014) and 12 months (15.7% vs. 19.9%; P = .017) [HR: 0.74, 95% CI: (0.56-0.96); P = .028]. Major bleeding rates were similar across cohorts. This real-world analysis suggests cancer patients with VTE treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE and similar risk of bleeding compared to those treated with LMWH or warfarin.

Direct oral anticoagulants: now also for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism?

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.

The role of direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-related venous thromboembolism: a perspective beyond the guidelines

Cancer-related venous thromboembolism (Wickham et al., Intern Med J 42(6):698-708, 2012) is an important source of morbidity and mortality in that population. The standard of care for the treatment of cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for long periods of time. The favorable clinical trial results for efficacy and safety and availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have remodeled the care and options for treatment of venous thromboembolism in the adult population. The data of cancer population-subgroup analysis of those studies have shown that DOAC are as effective and safe as conventional long-term oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Additionally, non-controlled retrospective and prospective cohort data have been published describing efficacy and safety outcomes for the use of DOAC in cancer-related VTE. Altogether, the results from clinical studies have shown that direct oral anticoagulants may represent a treatment option for cancer-related VTE and an alternative to anticoagulation with VKA. Little is known about the patient-centered and system-based variables that determine the use of DOAC outside consensus guidelines, neither is known the impact of different anticoagulant modalities in adherence and quality of life in cancer patients. The objectives of this manuscript are to summarize the clinical trial-based and cohort data of cancer patients treated with DOAC for VTE and to highlight the aspects that may influence adherent to therapy, effectiveness, and safety outcomes in the treatment of cancer-related VTE.