Which patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism should receive extended anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants? A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and decision analysis

Reducing the global burden of cerebral venous thrombosis: An international research agenda

BACKGROUND

Due to the rarity of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), performing high-quality scientific research in this field is challenging. Providing answers to unresolved research questions will improve prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, and ultimately translate to a better outcome of patients with CVT. We present an international research agenda, in which the most important research questions in the field of CVT are prioritized.

AIMS

This research agenda has three distinct goals: (1) to provide inspiration and focus to research on CVT for the coming years, (2) to reinforce international collaboration, and (3) to facilitate the acquisition of research funding.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

This international research agenda is the result of a research summit organized by the International Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Consortium in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in June 2023. The summit brought together 45 participants from 15 countries including clinical researchers from various disciplines, patients who previously suffered from CVT, and delegates from industry and non-profit funding organizations. The research agenda is categorized into six pre-specified themes: (1) epidemiology and clinical features, (2) life after CVT, (3) neuroimaging and diagnosis, (4) pathophysiology, (5) medical treatment, and (6) endovascular treatment. For each theme, we present two to four research questions, followed by a brief substantiation per question. The research questions were prioritized by the participants of the summit through consensus discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

This international research agenda provides an overview of the most burning research questions on CVT. Answering these questions will advance our understanding and management of CVT, which will ultimately lead to improved outcomes for CVT patients worldwide.

Major gastrointestinal bleeding risk with direct oral anticoagulants: Does type and dose matter? - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The relative risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) among different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is debatable. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with each other are lacking. We performed network meta-analysis to assess whether the risk of major GIB differs based on type and dose of DOAC. Literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from inception to August 2019, limited to English publications, was conducted to identify RCTs comparing DOACs with warfarin or enoxaparin for any indication. Primary outcome of interest was major GIB risk. We used frequentist network meta-analysis through the random-effects model to compare DOACs with each other and DOACs by dose to isolate the impact on major GIB. Twenty-eight RCTs, including 139 587 patients receiving six anticoagulants, were selected. The risk of major GIB for DOACs was equal to warfarin. Comparison of DOACs with each other did not show risk differences. After accounting for dose, rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 300 mg and edoxaban 60 mg daily had 47, 40 and 22% higher rates of major GIB versus warfarin, respectively. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily had lower major GIB compared to dabigatran 300 mg (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88) and rivaroxaban 20 mg (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83) daily. Heterogeneity was low, and the model was consistent without publication bias (Egger's test: P = 0.079). All RCTs were high-quality with low risk of bias. DOACs at standard dose, except apixaban, had a higher risk of major GIB compared to warfarin. Apixaban had a lower rate of major GIB compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.