Why the study?
Does extended prophylaxis with apixaban reduce venous thromboembolism compared to short-term prophylaxis with enoxaparin in acutely ill hospitalized patients?
Does extended prophylaxis with apixaban reduce venous thromboembolism compared to short-term prophylaxis with enoxaparin in acutely ill hospitalized patients?
In medically ill patients, extended thromboprophylaxis with apixaban for 30 days was not superior to short-term enoxaparin and was associated with significantly more major bleeding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“This is an important public health problem that we need to address. The critical issue is that we do not really understand which patients are at highest risk of thromboembolism associated with stay on medical inpatient services.”
Apixaban should not replace short-term enoxaparin for extended prophylaxis in medical inpatients; challenges assumptions favoring routine prolongation of anticoagulation.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prolonging prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in medically ill patients beyond hospital discharge remain uncertain. We hypothesized that extended prophylaxis with apixaban would be safe and more effective than short-term prophylaxis with enoxaparin. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned acutely ill patients who had congestive heart failure or respiratory failure or other medical disorders and at least one additional risk factor for venous thromboembolism and who were hospitalized with an expected stay of at least 3 days to receive apixaban, administered orally at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily for 30 days, or enoxaparin, administered subcutaneously at a dose of 40 mg once daily for 6 to 14 days. The primary efficacy outcome was the 30-day composite of death related to venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, or asymptomatic proximal-leg deep-vein thrombosis, as detected with the use of systematic bilateral compression ultrasonography on day 30. The primary safety outcome was bleeding. All efficacy and safety outcomes were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 6528 subjects underwent randomization, 4495 of whom could be evaluated for the primary efficacy outcome--2211 in the apixaban group and 2284 in the enoxaparin group. Among the patients who could be evaluated, 2.71% in the apixaban group (60 patients) and 3.06% in the enoxaparin group (70 patients) met the criteria for the primary efficacy outcome (relative risk with apixaban, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.23; P=0.44). By day 30, major bleeding had occurred in 0.47% of the patients in the apixaban group (15 of 3184 patients) and in 0.19% of the patients in the enoxaparin group (6 of 3217 patients) (relative risk, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.24; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In medically ill patients, an extended course of thromboprophylaxis with apixaban was not superior to a shorter course with enoxaparin. Apixaban was associated with significantly more major bleeding events than was enoxaparin. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00457002.).
Journal, society, and media accounts. Useful signal, not independent expert judgment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldhaber et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: