Comparison of rivaroxaban and dalteparin for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with gynecologic cancers

Comparison of rivaroxaban and low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a Swedish national population-based register study

BACKGROUND

Treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) with anticoagulation prevents recurrent venous thromboembolism (rVTE), but increases bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVES

To compare incidence of rVTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality for rivaroxaban versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with CAT.

METHODS

We developed a cohort study using Swedish national registers 2013-2019. Patients with CAT (venous thromboembolism within 6 months of cancer diagnosis) were included. Those with other indications or with high bleeding risk cancers were excluded (according to guidelines). Follow-up was from index-CAT until outcome, death, emigration, or end of study. Incidence rates (IR) per 1000 person-years with 95% confidence interval (CI) and propensity score overlap-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) for rivaroxaban versus LMWH were estimated.

RESULTS

We included 283 patients on rivaroxaban and 5181 on LMWH. The IR for rVTE was 68.7 (95% CI 40.0-109.9) for rivaroxaban, compared with 91.6 (95% CI 81.9-102.0) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.43-1.35). The IR for major bleeding was 23.5 (95% CI 8.6-51.1) for rivaroxaban versus 49.2 (95% CI 42.3-56.9) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.26-1.49). The IR for all-cause mortality was 146.8 (95% CI 103.9-201.5) for rivaroxaban and 565.6 (95% CI 541.8-590.2) for LMWH with adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.34-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Rivaroxaban performed similarly to LMWH for patients with CAT for rVTE and major bleeding. An all-cause mortality benefit was observed for rivaroxaban which potentially may be attributed to residual confounding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05150938 (Registered 9 December 2021).

Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban versus Dalteparin as a Treatment for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dalteparin and apixaban, have demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, more comparative research of these drugs is still needed. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of apixaban compared to dalteparin in reducing recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding associated with cancer. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials databases up to 5 January 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing apixaban versus dalteparin as treatment for cancer-associated VTE. Five studies were included. Effects according to meta-analyses were reported as relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: It was found that 33 of 734 (4.5%) patients treated with apixaban and 56 of 767 (7.3%) with dalteparin had recurrent VTE as the efficacy outcome (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15-1.58, I2 38%). Major bleeding occurred in 25 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (3.4%) and 27 of 767 with dalteparin (3.5%) (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31-5.27, I2 59%). Likewise, clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 64 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (8.7%) and 46 of 767 (5.9%) with dalteparin (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19, I2 0%). Conclusions: Apixaban showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE than dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE, albeit with no statistical difference. Statistical significance was observed for no major clinically relevant bleeding but not for major bleeding.

Efficacy of edoxaban for the treatment of gynecological cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: analysis of Japanese real-world data

OBJECTIVE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT). However, there is limited evidence of the efficacy of DOACs for the treatment of gynecological CAT. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of edoxaban for the treatment of gynecological CAT using Japanese real-world data.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients with 371 gynecological cancer who received edoxaban or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) between January 2011 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Altogether, 211 and 160 patients were treated with edoxaban and VKA, respectively. Fourteen patients (6.8%) in the edoxaban group and 22 (13.8%) in the VKA group showed recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cumulative VTE recurrence was not significantly different between the 2 groups (p=0.340). Adverse events occurred in 15 (7.1%) and 11 (6.9%) patients in the edoxaban and VKA groups, respectively (p=0.697). Subgroup analysis of the edoxaban and VKA groups according to different tumor types, including ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer, showed equivalent outcomes in terms of VTE recurrence and adverse events. Patients without pulmonary embolism (PE) were mostly omitted from initial unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy prior to administration of edoxaban. However, this did not increase the recurrence of VTE.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that edoxaban is effective and safe for the treatment of gynecological CAT. This finding was consistent for different types of gynecological cancer. Additionally, initial UFH therapy prior to the administration of edoxaban may be unnecessary for patients without PE.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism; A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies

INTRODUCTION

We compared the safety and efficacy of Xa-inhibitors to LMWH for treatment of venous thromboembolism in mixed and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts (CA-VTE).

METHODS

A systematic search identified RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) comparing Xa-inhibitors to LMWH for treating CA-VTE. Relative risks were computed. Certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Xa-inhibitors reduced the risk of recurrent VTE (RR0.64;0.49-0.84) and NRS (RR0.74;0.60-0.92;Moderate-Low Certainty). There was no significant difference in recurrent PE in RCTs (RR0.72;0.50-1.02) and NRS (1.43;0.65-3.12;Low-Very Low Certainty). Xa-inhibitors increased the risk of overall bleeding events in RCTs (RR1.45;1.05-2.01) and NRS (RR1.72;1.42-2.08;Moderate-Low Certainty), and the risk of major bleeding events in NRS (RR1.56;1.17-2.07), but not in RCTs (RR1.33;0.94-1.89; Low-Very Low Certainty). Similar results were detected in gastrointestinal cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Xa-inhibitors may reduce the risk of recurrent VTE, but not recurrent PE compared to LMWH. A higher overall bleeding risk, and a questionably higher major bleeding risk was found with Xa-inhibitor use.

Extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients with cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Hospitalized medically ill patients with cancer are at increased risk of both venous thromboembolism and bleeding. The safety and efficacy of extended thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer are unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature using of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases to identify cancer subgroups enrolled in randomized controlled trials evaluating extended thromboprophylaxis following hospitalization. The primary outcomes were symptomatic and incidental venous thromboembolic events and hemorrhage (major hemorrhage and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding). Four randomized controlled trials reported the outcomes of extended thromboprophylaxis in 3655 medically ill patients with active or history of cancer. The rates of venous thromboembolic events were similar between the extended-duration and standard-duration groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.18; I2 = 0%). However, major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred significantly more frequently in the extended-duration thromboprophylaxis group (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.35; I2 = 8%). Extended thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients with cancer was not associated with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events but was associated with increased risk of hemorrhage. This study protocol was registered on PROSPERO as #CRD42020209333.

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.