Recent advances in the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: role of the direct oral anticoagulants and their unique challenges

Use of direct oral anticoagulants for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic malignancies

Venous thromboembolism is a preventable cause of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for malignancy. Current standard of care based on international guideline recommends 28 days of extended thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal and pelvic surgery for malignancies with unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. Direct oral anticoagulants have been approved for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in the general population. This regimen has a significant advantage over other types of anticoagulation regimens, particularly being administered by non-parenteral routes and without the need for laboratory monitoring. In this review, we evaluate the role of direct anticoagulation and provide an update on completed and ongoing clinical trials.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through an antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), with no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted comprehensive searches on 14 June 2021, following the original electronic searches performed in February 2016 (last major search). We electronically searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase. In addition, we handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory people with cancer (i.e., not hospital inpatients during the time of their participation in trials) These people are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, two review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 12,620 identified citations, 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in six of these RCTs, and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in the remaining four RCTs (three studies used apixaban; one used rivaroxaban). The comparator was either placebo or no prophylaxis. Compared to no prophylaxis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) probably reduce mortality at six months slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 72 fewer to 41 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduce mortality at 12 months slightly (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate-certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of a VKA compared to no prophylaxis on thrombosis; the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of VKA compared to no VKA on pulmonary embolism and symptomatic DVT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 37 fewer to 16 more; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Also, VKAs probably increase major and minor bleeding at 12 months (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate-certainty evidence for major bleeding, and RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate-certainty evidence for minor bleeding). Compared to no prophylaxis, at three to six months, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38, RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 67 fewer to 70 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism slightly compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.98; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 1 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce symptomatic DVT slightly (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.15; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 8 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably do not increase major bleeding (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.80; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 40 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase minor bleeding (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 23.44; RD 55 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 482 more; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), the current evidence on VKA thromboprophylaxis suggests that the harm of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolism. With DOACs, the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolic events outweighs the risk of major bleeding. Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the 'What's new' section in the  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell disorder characterised by clonal plasma cells that cause end-organ damage such as renal failure, lytic bone lesions, hypercalcaemia and/or anaemia. People with multiple myeloma are treated with immunomodulatory agents including lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide. Multiple myeloma is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, which appears to be further increased in people receiving immunomodulatory agents.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of aspirin, oral anticoagulants, or parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents who otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. (2) To maintain this review as a living systematic review by continually running the searches and incorporating newly identified studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search that included (1) a major electronic search (14 June 2021) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid; (2) hand-searching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of reference lists of included studies; and (4) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches, and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), anti-platelet agents such as aspirin (ASA), and parenteral anticoagulants such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, and minor bleeding. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and the risk difference (RD) with its 95% CI. We then assessed the certainty of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1015 identified citations and included 11 articles reporting four RCTs that enrolled 1042 participants. The included studies made the following comparisons: ASA versus VKA (one study); ASA versus LMWH (two studies); VKA versus LMWH (one study); and ASA versus DOAC (two studies, one of which was an abstract). ASA versus VKA One RCT compared ASA to VKA at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.24; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; RD 27 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 48 fewer to 21 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.72; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 134 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 49.43; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 220 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to VKA at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.47; RD 5 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 41 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.44; RD 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 34 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus LMWH Two RCTs compared ASA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.81; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 38 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.08; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 11 fewer to 43 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 7.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 61.44; RD 7 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 60 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 6.97, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.11; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 133 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.78; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 50 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 68 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.72; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 78 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). VKA versus LMWH One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.10; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 32 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 5.93; RD 36 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 135 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 8.96, 95% CI 0.49 to 165.42; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 164 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.17; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 30 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no major bleeding occurred in either arm. One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.90; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.63; RD 32 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 120 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus DOAC One RCT compared ASA to DOAC at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to DOAC on DVT, PE, and major bleeding and minor bleeding (minor bleeding: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 79.94; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 79 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no DVT, PE, or major bleeding events occurred in either arm. These results did not change in a meta-analysis including the study published as an abstract.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the available evidence for the comparative effects of ASA, VKA, LMWH, and DOAC on all-cause mortality, DVT, PE, or bleeding was either low or very low. People with multiple myeloma considering antithrombotic agents should balance the possible benefits of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Heparin beyond anti-coagulation

Heparin has served as a mainstream anticoagulant for over eight decades. Clinically heparin-derived compounds significantly contribute to prevention and treatment of thrombotic events complicated in numerous medical conditions such as venous thromboembolism, coronary artery disease and extracorporeal circulation processes. Moreover in recent years, various off-labeled efficacious potentials of heparin beyond anti-coagulation are dramatically emerging, and increasingly investigated in clinical studies. Herein this article presents a comprehensive update on the expanded applications of heparin agents, covering the pregnant clinic, respiratory inflammation, renal disease, sepsis, pancreatitis, among others. It aims to maximize the beneficial profile of a pharmaceutical product through medical re-purposing development, exemplified by heparin, to address the unmet clinical needs of severe illness including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Thromboembolism in Malignant Musculoskeletal Tumour: A Literature Review

Malignant musculoskeletal tumour may cause considerable burden to general health. The fast growth combined with the tumour characteristics and its invasion capability resulted in the poor prognosis of malignant musculoskeletal tumour. Malignant musculoskeletal tumour may cause significant disability by destroying normal tissue that plays important role in body kinematics. Thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and other kinds of venous thromboembolism, is one of the most underestimated complications of musculoskeletal tumour. Normally, thrombosis ensues when pathologic factors overcame the body hemostatic regulatory capabilities, which will predispose the body to the formation of thrombus. Venous thromboembolism in musculoskeletal tumour may develop as a result of interaction between the tumour pathologic capabilities and its interaction with normal bodily functions. In this study, we reviewed the burden of musculoskeletal tumour and its complication on global health. Then, the review will focus on the pathologic and clinical aspect of thromboembolism in malignant musculoskeletal tumour, including pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment based on recent findings and literature.

Deep vein thrombosis and brain metastases. Case report and systematic review

Secondary brain tumours, also known as brain metastasis, are a group of neoplasias which constitute the most frequent type of brain tumour in adults. Up to 20% patients with brain metastasis present venous thromboembolism (VTE). The management of VTE in these patients is complicated by multiple factors including intracranial haemorrhage, among others. We evaluated the case fatality rate (the proportion of patients who die due to a particular condition) of haemorrhage and recurrent VTE in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and brain metastasis to compare the risk/benefits of anticoagulant treatment. We also describe a clinical case and a systematic review of the literature on the management of anticoagulant treatment in patients with brain metastases and DVT. The principal objective of this review was to clarify the main questions about the management of this type of patient based on a clinical case.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer Patients. Time for a Change in Paradigm

Thrombosis is a more common occurrence in cancer patients compared to the general population and is one of the main causes of death in these patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the recognized standard treatment for more than a decade, both in cancer-related thrombosis and in its prevention. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a new option for anticoagulation therapy. Recently published results of large randomized clinical trials have confirmed that DOAC may be a reasonable alternative to LMWH in cancer patients. The following review summarizes the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of DOAC in the treatment and prevention of cancer-related thrombosis. It also draws attention to the limitations of this group of drugs, knowledge of which will facilitate the selection of optimal therapy.

Are Patients with Active Cancer and Those with History of Cancer Carrying the Same Risks of Recurrent VTE and Bleeding While on Anticoagulants?

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are now recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) based on the results of dedicated trials demonstrating that DOAC are non-inferior to low molecular weight heparins in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in this population. The definition of “cancer patient” differs substantially among studies. Whether patients with active cancer and those with a history of cancer (HOC) carry the same risks of recurrent VTE and bleeding remains unclear. Few studies reported data on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants according to active cancer or HOC categories. While in subgroup analyses of EINSTEIN and HOKUSAI the rates of recurrent VTE and bleeding did not differ between these categories, results from a subgroup analysis of AMPLIFY, from HOKUSAI-Cancer, and from the COMMAND cohort suggest that HOC patients might have a lower bleeding risk than active cancer patients. Whether the inclusion of HOC patients in CAT studies might introduce some bias by decreasing the rates of both recurrent VTE and bleeding remains an unanswered issue since no dedicated prospective study addressed this question. A strict definition of active cancer should be used in further trials.

Use of New Oral Anticoagulants / Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Malignant Patients

Vitamin K antagonists are being used in the last five decades as an effective anticoagulant. However, for the past few years, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been introduced as newer anticoagulant agents, which are gradually replacing the previously used vitamin K antagonist. Yet, these agents have not fully replaced the use of warfarin and heparin. NOACs have few advantages over the vitamin K antagonist as they act on a specific factor of coagulation cascade rather than inhibiting the whole vitamin K synthesis. In this article, all the data has been searched electronically on PubMed and PRISMA guidelines were not followed. Instead, we used MOOSE statements and the data searched on PubMed was from articles published in the last five years. A total of 12,269 patients were observed;,out of which 64.19% had active cancer and 35.80% was observed as a control group comprised of both male or female participants. Approximately 61.14% were using NOACs, 42.83% were on warfarin, and 2.72% were on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The NOACs used in different patients were in the following percentages; edoxaban (6.81%), apixaban (5.28%), dabigatran (10.09%), and rivaroxaban (10.02%). The use of NOACs has been increasing day by day but these agents have not completely replaced the warfarin or heparin, because of some demerits associated with the use of warfarin and some conditions where these drugs should be avoided. All NOACs have either hepatic or renal clearance so the hepatic activity and creatinine clearance rate must be monitored before the start of NOACs. The drug interaction between anticancer drugs and NOACs is still not fully reported. The effects of NOACs in AF and VTE are therapeutically effective, but in oncology patients several other co-factors are also involved with the use of NOACs due to which, it is either contraindicated or in some cases dose adjustment is required. However, very little information has been collected and more investigation must be done in this perspective.

Venous thromboembolic complications in lymphoma patients

Lymphomas represent a heterogeneous group of malignant hematological diseases with high risk for development of venous thromboembolic complications (VTE). Consequently, VTE significantly impacts morbidity and mortality in these patients. Another concern is the financial burden of the healthcare system caused by diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The complex biology of lymphoma, in conjunction with patient and treatment related risk factors for the development of VTE, results in a procoagulant hemostatic dysregulation. Considering the incidence of VTE in patients with lymphoma, there is an emerging demand for both reliable risks assessment model (RAM) for prediction of VTE, as well as for effective VTE prophylaxis and treatment. The clinical course of patients with malignant diseases is accompanied by a wide range of potential treatment complications, making the task of prevention and treatment of VTE even more challenging. In recent years, great progress has been achieved in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of thrombotic complications, while the significant number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) have provided standards of prophylaxis and treatment of VTE complications in patients with malignancy. In comparison to previous recommendations and guidelines for CAT, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) has been gradually approaching low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in terms of efficacy and safety profile in these indications. This systematic review is focused on the latest pathophysiological advances, risk factors assessment, prophylactic and therapeutic recommendations and guidelines concerning VTE in patients with lymphoma.