Are new anticoagulants a safe and reasonable alternative to low molecular heparins?

Oral anticoagulation is preferable to injected, but only if it is safe and effective: An interview study of patient and carer experience of oral and injected anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated thrombosis in the select-d trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients have a four- to fivefold greater risk of thrombosis than the general population. Recommended treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis is 3-6 months of low-molecular-weight heparin. The 'select-d' trial is an open-label, randomised, multi-centre pilot trial in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, utilising dalteparin (low-molecular-weight heparin) versus rivaroxaban (a direct oral anticoagulant), to assess effectiveness and safety.

AIM

To explore patient and informal carers' experiences of cancer-associated thrombosis and their experience and understanding of the risk-benefit of thrombosis treatment.

DESIGN

Qualitative substudy of the select-d trial, using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were purposively sampled ( n = 37 patients; 46% male; age 40-89; 9 with carer present).

RESULTS

Three themes were found: experience of cancer-associated thrombosis, experience of anticoagulation and risk-benefit balance of the two modes of administration. Some were shocked by their thrombosis diagnosis (most were unaware of their risk), but others found it insignificant compared with cancer. Most patients found tablets more convenient, but injections were acceptable in the context of having cancer. While most were happy to follow medical advice, others weighed preference on the basis of effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Lack of awareness of thrombosis risk is concerning; cancer patients must be informed to enable prompt help-seeking. Tablets could provide a welcome choice for patients if there is equivalent risk-benefit to injected anticoagulants. Patients trust their clinicians to tailor their treatment. Future research could explore the effect of routine information giving about the risk of thrombosis.

Management and treatment of deep vein thrombosis in special populations

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most frequent cardiovascular disease besides myocardial infarction and stroke. Because DVT may cause life-threatening conditions, treatment should be started as soon as possible. This comprises certain challenges in special populations. Areas covered: In cancer-associated VTE, current treatment is different from non-cancer VTE due to disease-related interventions and higher bleeding risks. In the treatment of patients with extensive DVT, the role of catheter-directed thrombolysis has been investigated in two randomized trials, but results do not yield a recommendation for standard thrombolysis. The diagnosis of suspected recurrent DVT is especially challenging in case of ipsilateral DVT. Treatment strategies in recurrent DVT are dependent on the case and on particular risk factors. Also discussed is the therapy for DVT in pregnant women, which is more complex as a result of anticoagulants crossing the placenta. Expert commentary: DVT treatment in special populations poses special challenges due to high thrombotic and bleeding risk. This will be discussed in more detail in this review.