Key result
NOACs (edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are attractive alternatives to LMWH for treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, though bleeding risks and drug interactions remain concerns.
Why the study?
NOACs have emerged as potential alternatives to burdensome daily LMWH injections for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, warranting a review of available clinical outcomes, guidelines, and patient perspectives.
Do non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants improve clinical outcomes in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism compared to low-molecular-weight heparin?
Comparison
NOACs vs LMWH
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
NOACs may ease daily injections in cancer-associated VTE; leaves open need for definitive efficacy-safety trials versus LMWH.
Do non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants improve clinical outcomes in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism compared to low-molecular-weight heparin?
NOACs are an attractive, guideline-endorsed alternative to LMWH for treating cancer-associated VTE, though bleeding risks, drug interactions, and patient preferences require careful consideration.
Overvad et al. (2020) conducted a review in Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was evaluated. NOACs (edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are attractive alternatives to LMWH for treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, though bleeding risks and drug interactions remain concerns.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: