Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in active cancer: what the cardiologists think

Cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer - a scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC and the ESC Council of Cardio-Oncology

The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Cancer Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) and the Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH e.V.)

Active cancer by itself but also chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and especially coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The frequency of CVD, CAD, and AF varies depending on comorbidities (particularly in older patients), cancer type, and stage, as well as the anticancer therapeutic being taken. Many reports exist for anticancer drugs being associated with CVD, CAD, and AF, but robust data are often lacking. Because of this, each patient needs an individual structured approach concerning thromboembolic and bleeding risk, drug-drug interactions, as well as patient preferences to evaluate the need for anticoagulation therapy and targeting optimal symptom control. Interruption of specific cancer therapy should be avoided to reduce the potential risk of cancer progression. Nevertheless, additional factors like thrombocytopenia and anticoagulation in the elderly and frail patient with cancer cause additional challenges which need to be addressed in daily clinical management. Therefore, the aim of these recommendations is to summarize the available scientific data on antithrombotic therapy (both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy) in cancer patients with CVD and in cases of missing data providing guidance for optimal careful decision-making in daily routine.

When anticoagulation management in atrial fibrillation becomes difficult: Focus on chronic kidney disease, coagulation disorders, and cancer

Anticoagulation therapy (AT) is fundamental in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment but poses challenges in implementation, especially in AF populations with elevated thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Current guidelines emphasize the need to estimate and balance thrombosis and bleeding risks for all potential candidates of antithrombotic therapy. However, administering oral AT raises concerns in specific populations, such as those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), coagulation disorders, and cancer due to lack of robust data. These groups, excluded from large direct oral anticoagulants trials, rely on observational studies, prompting physicians to adopt individualized management strategies based on case-specific evaluations. The scarcity of evidence and specific guidelines underline the need for a tailored approach, emphasizing regular reassessment of risk factors and anticoagulation drug doses. This narrative review aims to summarize evidence and recommendations for challenging AF clinical scenarios, particularly in the long-term management of AT for patients with CKD, coagulation disorders, and cancer.

Lung Cancer Related Thrombosis (LCART): Focus on Immune Checkpoint Blockade

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Relationships, Current Issues, Safety and Efficacy of Oral Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

A relationship between malignancy and impaired hemostasis has been proven, and balancing clotting and bleeding risks can be challenging. Half of cancer patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive any oral anticoagulation (OAC). Using PubMed on the relationship between cancer and AF and their association with hemostasis, targeting studies comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct OAC (DOAC) strategies in AF cancer patients, three RCTs (>3000 patients) and eight observational studies (>250,000 patients) comparing different OACs were retrieved. The VKA prescribed was always warfarin. Dabigatran was the only DOAC not analyzed in the RCTs but the most used in non-randomized studies, whereas edoxaban-treated patients were the majority in the RCTs. Overall, the DOAC patients showed similar or lower rates of efficacy (thromboembolic) and safety (bleeding) outcomes compared to the VKA patients. DOACs are subject to fewer interactions with antineoplastic agents. DOACs may be preferable to VKAs as a thromboembolic prophylaxis in cancer patients with non-valvular AF.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Cancer Patients

(1) Introduction: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly coexisting medical challenges. These two conditions share an increased thrombotic and bleeding risk. Although optimal regimens of the most suitable anti-thrombotic therapy are now affirmed in the general population, cancer patients are still particularly understudied on the matter; (2) Aims And Methodology: This metanalysis (11 studies (incl. 266,865 patients)) aims at evaluating the ischemic-hemorrhagic risk profile of oncologic patients with AF treated with oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists vs. direct oral anticoagulants); (3) Results: In the oncological population, DOACs confer a benefit in terms of the reduction in ischemic, hemorrhagic and venous thromboembolic events. However, ischemic prevention has a non-insignificant bleeding risk, lower than Warfarin but significant and higher than the non-oncological patients; (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulation with DOACs provides a higher safety profile with respect to VKAs in terms of stroke reduction and a relative bleeding reduction risk. Further studies are needed to better assess the optimal anticoagulation strategy in cancer patients with AF.

The new 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-oncology and their impact on the Acute Cardiovascular Care Society

In this perspective piece on the recently published ESC Guidelines on Cardio-oncology and the Consensus Statements from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association, we summarize key learning points regarding the management of acute cardiovascular disease in patients with cancer. This document outlines where other pre-existing ESC Guidelines can be applied to the management of acute cardiovascular disease in patients with cancer while simultaneously highlighting important gaps in knowledge that require further research.

Cancer and cardiovascular disease share common risk factors and often co-exist, especially in older patients. In addition, patients with cancer undergoing active treatment are exposed to multiple, potentially cardiotoxic drugs, which may manifest as a variety of cardiovascular events, including left-ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure, arrhythmias, hypertension, or acute venous and arterial vascular events.

Knowledge about potential causative cancer therapeutics is necessary for rapid recognition and management to improve cardiovascular outcomes and guide ongoing cancer treatment. Specifically, the importance of rapidly interrupting culprit cancer drugs is highlighted, as well as instituting standard guideline-based therapies for conditions such as acute heart failure and acute coronary syndromes [ST-elevation myocardial infarction and high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS)]. Given the high prevalence of thrombocytopenia and increased bleeding risk in patients with cancer, we are provided with platelet cut-offs for the use of different antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants for patients with ACS and atrial arrhythmias. In contrast, given the hypercoagulable milieu of cancer, we are provided information regarding types of anticoagulants, drug–drug interactions, and duration of anticoagulation in patients with acute venous thromboembolism, as well as for atrial fibrillation. They also discuss the diagnostic and treatment strategies for the unique cardiotoxicities seen with novel cancer therapeutics such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric receptor antigen T-cell therapy. Last, but not least, the authors emphasize that the care of these patients requires close collaboration between cardiology and oncology to maximize both cardiovascular and cancer outcomes.

Adherence to the "Atrial fibrillation Better Care" (ABC) pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: A report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in atrial fibrillation (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is recommended by guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF), but the impact of adherence to ABC pathway in patients with cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the adherence to ABC pathway and its impact on adverse outcomes in AF patients with cancer.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry were analyzed according to (i) No Cancer; and (ii) Prior or active cancer and stratified in relation to adherence to the ABC pathway. The composite Net Clinical Outcome (NCO) of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Among 6550 patients (median age 69 years, females 40.1%), 6005 (91.7%) had no cancer, while 545 (8.3%) had a diagnosis of active or prior cancer at baseline, with the proportions of full adherence to ABC pathway of 30.6% and 25.7%, respectively. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of the primary outcome vs. non-adherence, both in 'no cancer' and 'cancer' patients [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.92 and aHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.96, respectively]. Adherence to a higher number of ABC criteria was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome, being lowest when 3 ABC criteria were fulfilled (no cancer: aHR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.36-0.81; with cancer: aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.78).

CONCLUSION

In AF patients with cancer enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, adherence to ABC pathway was sub-optimal. Full adherence to ABC-pathway was associated with a lower risk of adverse events.

Impact of malignancy on outcomes in European patients with atrial fibrillation: A report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational research programme in atrial fibrillation general long-term registry

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and malignancy is challenging given the paucity of evidence supporting their appropriate clinical management.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with active or prior malignancy in a contemporary cohort of European AF patients.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the EURObservational Research Programme in AF General Long-Term Registry were categorized into 3 categories: No Malignancy (NoMal), Prior Malignancy (PriorMal) and Active Malignancy (ActiveMal). The primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite outcome MACE.

RESULTS

A total of 10 383 patients were analysed. Of these, 9597 (92.4%) were NoMal patients, 577 (5.6%) PriorMal and 209 (2%) ActiveMal. Lack of any antithrombotic treatment was more prevalent in ActiveMal patients (12.4%) as compared to other groups (5.0% vs 6.3% for PriorMal and NoMal, p < .001). After a median follow-up of 730 days, there were 982 (9.5%) deaths and 950 (9.7%) MACE events. ActiveMal was independently associated with a higher risk for all-cause death (HR 2.90, 95% CI 2.23-3.76) and MACE (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03-2.31), as well as any haemorrhagic events and major bleeding (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.49-3.91 and OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.49-7.01, respectively). Use of oral anticoagulants was not significantly associated with a higher risk for all-cause death or bleeding in ActiveMal patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large contemporary cohort of AF patients, active malignancy was independently associated with all-cause death, MACE and haemorrhagic events. Use of anticoagulants was not associated with a higher risk of all-cause death in patients with active malignancies.

Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in active cancer (Review)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) may often pre-exist in patients with newly diagnosed cancer or occur with increased frequency shortly after cancer diagnosis. Patients with active cancer and AF have a particularly high risk of thromboembolic complications, as both conditions carry a risk of thrombosis. Thromboembolic risk is determined by several factors, including advanced age, sex (females), cancer histology (adenocarcinomas), location (e.g., pancreas, stomach), advanced stage, anticancer regimens (e.g., platinum compounds, anti-angiogenic therapies, immune modulators), comorbidities (e.g., obesity, kidney disease) and concurrent therapies (e.g., surgery, central catheters). Physicians are often reluctant to prescribe anticoagulants to patients with active cancer and AF, mainly due to fear of bleeding complications, which is partly related to the paucity of evidence in the field. Decision making regarding anticoagulation for the prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in patients with active cancer and AF may be challenging and should not simply rely on the risk prediction scores used in the general AF population. By contrast, the administration and choice of anticoagulants should be based on the comprehensive, individualized and periodic evaluation of thromboembolic and bleeding risk, drug-drug interactions, patient preferences and access to therapies.