Why the study?
Although DOACs improve adherence and quality of life in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, clinical conditions can restrict their therapeutic index, leading guidelines to still recommend heparins in some settings.
Does DOAC improve the composite outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism compared to heparins?
Does DOAC improve the composite outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism compared to heparins?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
DOACs appear to be as effective and safe as heparins for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, with no significant difference in recurrent VTE or major bleeding.
BACKGROUND: the emerging use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) is significantly improving therapeutic adherence and quality of life. Despite this, many conditions can restrict the therapeutic index of these drugs. For all these reasons the latest guidelines recommend the use of heparins in the treatment of CAT as the preferred treatment in some clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of DOAC, in terms of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding (MB), as a composite primary outcome. Mortality and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. METHODS: we performed a retrospective study on 209 patients to compare the effects of DOAC versus heparins for the treatment of CAT. 127 patients with a high bleeding risk neoplasia were enrolled. RESULTS: A primary-outcome event occurred in 11.3% of patients treated with heparins and in 10.5% treated with DOAC (Relative Risk 0.92; 95% CI 0.42-2.01, p= 0.84). Recurrent VTE occurred in 6.1% in the heparins group and in 8.4% in the DOAC group (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.51-3.64, p= 0.52). MB occurred in 5.2% in the heparins group and in 2.1% in the DOAC group (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.08-1.93, p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: DOAC seem to be as effective and safe as heparins in the treatment of CAT. Most bleeding events occurred in patients with high-risk bleeding neoplasms regardless of the type of anticoagulant. Considering the characteristics and satisfaction of patients using DOAC in this setting, this approach should be considered as a first choice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cominacini et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: