Rivaroxaban versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Cancer

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Data from randomized clinical trials in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) conferred similar or superior efficacy but a heterogeneous safety profile in patients with GICA. We compared the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in patients with GICA and VTE at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of patients with GICA and VTE receiving treatment with DOACs for a minimum of 6 months. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and recurrent VTE. Secondary outcomes were time to bleeding and recurrent VTE.

RESULTS

A cohort of 433 patients with GICA who were prescribed apixaban (n = 300), or rivaroxaban (n = 133) were included. MB occurred in 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-5.9), CRNMB in 5.3% (95% CI 3.4-7.9), and recurrent VTE in 7.4% (95% CI 5.1-10.3). The cumulative incidence rates of CRNMB and recurrent VTE were not significantly different when comparing apixaban to rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSION

Apixaban and rivaroxaban had a similar risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding and could be considered as anticoagulant options in selected patients with GICA and VTE.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparins for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The association between gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is well known. Previous randomized controlled studies demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) effectively treat cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). However, some DOACs appeared to increase the risk of bleeding, particularly in patients with GI malignancies. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in GI cancer-associated thrombosis.

Methods

Two investigators individually reviewed all studies that compared DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in GI cancer-associated thrombosis and were published in MEDLINE and EMBASE before February 2022. The effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each eligible study were combined using the Mantel–Haenszel method.

Results

A total of 2226 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rates of major bleeding in the DOAC and LMWH groups were not significantly different (relative risk [RR]: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.84–2.04; P = 0.23; I² = 41%). However, the rate of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) was significantly higher in the DOAC group (RR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.24–2.52; P = 0.002; I² = 8%). The risks of recurrent VTE in the groups did not significantly differ (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.49–1.04; P = 0.08; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

The current data suggest that treatment of GI cancer-associated thrombosis with DOACs significantly increases the risk of CRNMB. However, the risk of major bleeding was not significantly different. The efficacy of DOACs for preventing recurrent VTE in GI cancer was comparable to that of LMWHs.

Trial registration

INPLASY202180113.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-022-00399-7.

Bleeding in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer Compared With Nongastrointestinal Cancer Treated With Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, or Enoxaparin for Acute Venous Thromboembolism

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with that in patients with non-GI cancer treated with anticoagulation for acute cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with Ca-VTE seen at the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic between March 1, 2013, and April 20, 2020, were observed prospectively to assess major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB).

RESULTS

In the group of 1392 patients with Ca-VTE, 499 (35.8%) had GI cancer including 272 with luminal GI cancer (lower GI, 208; upper GI, 64), 176 with pancreatic cancer, and 51 with hepatobiliary cancer. The rate of major bleeding and CRNMB in patients with GI cancer was similar to that in 893 (64.2%) patients with non-GI cancer treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or enoxaparin. Apixaban had a higher rate of major bleeding in luminal GI cancer compared with the non-GI cancer group (15.59 vs 3.26 per 100 person-years; P=.004) and compared with enoxaparin in patients with luminal GI cancer (15.59 vs 3.17; P=.04). Apixaban had a lower rate of CRNMB compared with rivaroxaban in patients with GI cancer (3.83 vs 9.40 per 100 person-years; P=.03). Patients treated with rivaroxaban in the luminal GI cancer group had a major bleeding rate similar to that of patients with non-GI cancer (2.04 vs 4.91 per 100 person-years; P=.37).

CONCLUSION

Apixaban has a higher rate of major bleeding in patients with luminal GI cancer compared with patients with non-GI cancer and compared with enoxaparin in patients with luminal GI cancer. Rivaroxaban shows no increased risk of major bleeding in patients with GI cancer or luminal GI cancer compared with patients with non-GI cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504007.

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).

The Net Clinical Benefit of Rivaroxaban Compared to Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) carries significant morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) remains the standard of care, with recent systematic studies suggesting the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Uncertainty, however, remains regarding rivaroxaban efficacy and safety in real-world settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWH. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was the net clinical benefit (NCB), while rates of major bleeding (MB), venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality events were secondary outcomes. Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Rivaroxaban had a better NCB (relative risk [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.75-0.89, Q = 10.51, I ² = 0%), less VTE events (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, Q = 6.76, I ² = 0%), and lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.91, Q = 32.8, I ² = 79%) compared to LMWH. Additionally, comparable MB events (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.85-1.33, Q = 16.9, I ² = 11%). However, CRNMB events were higher in the rivaroxaban group (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.46-2.80, Q = 9.9, I ² = 19%). Additional analyses demonstrated consistency of results. Our review encompassing data from randomized and real-world data suggested rivaroxaban superiority compared to LMWH in terms of a better NCB, fewer VTE events, lower all-cause mortality, and comparable MB risk while carrying a higher risk of CRNMB. These findings support the use of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Additionally, it warrants a sizable randomized controlled study testing the superiority of rivaroxaban versus LMWH formulation and ascertaining bleeding outcomes according to cancer type and site.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.

Methods

Literature was searched in databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible studies were included, and data were collected independently by 2 reviewers. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the treatment of VTE in cancer patients. The odds ratios (ORs) of different DOACs compared with LMWHs for VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) recurrence, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), were calculated in meta-analyses and subgroup analyses.

Results

A total of 18 articles were eligible for analyses, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective studies. Both RCTs and retrospective studies confirmed that DOACs decreased the risk of VTE recurrence [RCTs: OR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59–0.90] and DVT recurrence (RCTs: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36–0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.63), but not PE recurrence or fatal PE in cancer patients. Subgroup analyses revealed an important role of rivaroxaban in decreasing recurrent VTE. Meanwhile, major bleeding events were not increased in the DOAC group, but the risks of CRNMBs were significantly elevated. Subgroup analyses confirmed the role of rivaroxaban in increasing the risk of major bleeding events and CRNMBs.

Conclusions

Compared with LMWHs, DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) significantly reduce the risk of VTE and DVT, but not PE recurrence, in patients with cancer. Although DOACs did not increase the major bleeding events in pooled analysis, rivaroxaban showed an elevated risk of this adverse effect in subgroup analysis. In addition, the risk of CRNMB events was increased after the application of DOACs including rivaroxaban.

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.