Edoxaban for Venous Thromboembolism Treatment-The New Kid on The Block for Latin America. A Practical Guide

Bridging the Gap in Cancer-Related Stroke Management: Update on Therapeutic and Preventive Approaches

The underlying aetiopathophysiology of cancer-related strokes and thromboembolisms differs from that of noncancer-related strokes, which makes treating cancer-related strokes and thromboembolisms a distinct clinical challenge. This necessitates the development of novel, individualised diagnostic and treatment strategies. However, limited guidelines are available for the management of cancer-related strokes and the prevention of acute strokes or other thromboembolic events in this patient population. In this article, we present an updated overview of the therapeutic and preventive strategies for strokes in cancer settings. These strategies include acute reperfusion therapy, anticoagulant therapy, antiplatelet therapy, and lifestyle management options. We also outline comprehensive pathways and highlight gaps in the evidence-based clinical management of cancer-related strokes or thromboembolisms. Additionally, future recommendations for the management of strokes in cancer patients are provided.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Latin American Perspective

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. On the basis of results from randomized controlled trials, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. The decision to use a DOAC requires consideration of bleeding risk, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, the cost-benefit and convenience of oral therapy, and patient preference. While efficacy with apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus dalteparin has been consistent in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, heterogeneity is evident with respect to major GI bleeding, with an increased risk with edoxaban and rivaroxaban but not apixaban. Although cost and accessibility vary in different countries of Latin America, DOACs should be considered for the long-term treatment of cancer-associated VTE in all patients who are likely to benefit. Apixaban may be the preferred DOAC in patients with GI malignancies and LMWH may be preferred for patients with upper or unresected lower GI tumors. Vitamin K antagonists should only be used for anticoagulation when DOACs and low molecular weight heparin are inaccessible or unsuitable.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban vs low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for cancer-associated thrombosis in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. In Brazil, even though low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the gold standard of care for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), its cost limits its use and therefore warfarin is commonly prescribed. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as edoxaban, have been introduced as an alternative in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban with LMWH (Model 1) and warfarin (Model 2) to support clinicians and hospitals when choosing an anticoagulant to manage CAT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using Markov state-transition models over a timeframe of 5 years, in a hypothetical, 64 years-old patients cancer population with an index VTE event. Transition probabilities, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and risk reductions were either derived from the literature, estimated or calculated. A willingness-to-pay limit of 3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for robustness. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Model 1 base case analysis demonstrated dominance of edoxaban compared to LMWH, with an ICER of $5204.46, representing cost saved per QALY lost. In Model 2, edoxaban was associated with a $736.90 cost increase vs. warfarin, with an ICER of $2541.03. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base-case results.

CONCLUSION

Edoxaban represents a cost-saving alternative to LMWH for the management of CAT and is cost-effective vs. warfarin.