Why the study?
Patients with cancer face high risks of recurrent VTE and bleeding complications during anticoagulation, creating unmet clinical needs in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis.
DOACs are an effective alternative to LMWHs for cancer-associated thrombosis, but careful patient selection is required due to bleeding risks, particularly in gastrointestinal malignancies.
Highlights bleeding risk with DOACs in GI cancers; leaves open optimal agent selection pending dedicated RCTs.
Patients with cancer are at a high risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in this patient population. Increased risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding complications are two major challenges associated with therapeutic anticoagulation in these patients. Long-term therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) has been the standard of care for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE given its favorable risk-benefit ratio in comparison with vitamin K antagonists. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which offer the convenience of oral administration and have a rapid onset of action, have recently emerged as a new treatment option for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CT). Randomized clinical trial data with head-to-head comparisons between DOACs and LMWHs showed that overall, DOACs have a similar efficacy profile but a higher risk of bleeding was observed in some of these studies. This review aims to identify unmet needs in the treatment of CT. We discuss important considerations for clinicians tailoring anticoagulation (1) drug-drug interactions, (2) risk of bleeding (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding), (3) thrombocytopenia, hematological malignancies, (4) metastatic or primary brain tumors, and (5) renal impairment. Additional research is warranted in several clinical scenarios to help clinicians on the best therapeutic approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Falanga et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: