Why the study?
Venous thromboembolism and major bleeding are common in cancer patients, but data on reduced-dose antithrombotics for secondary prophylaxis are limited.
Does lowering the dose, maintaining the full dose, or stopping treatment of DOACs or enoxaparin affect VTE recurrence and bleeding in adults with cancer-associated VTE?
Does lowering the dose, maintaining the full dose, or stopping treatment of DOACs or enoxaparin affect VTE recurrence and bleeding in adults with cancer-associated VTE?
In a real-world cohort of patients with cancer-associated VTE, lowering anticoagulant doses after 3-6 months of initial therapy resulted in similar rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding compared to maintaining full doses.
Similar VTE and bleeding rates across strategies; leaves open optimal extended prophylaxis intensity and duration in cancer-associated VTE.
Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding (MB) are common in cancer patients. Reduced-doses of antithrombotics as secondary prophylaxis have limited data. This work aims to describe and to compare treatments and outcomes for cancer-associated VTE.Research design and methods Retrospective study. Adults with cancer-associated VTE were included. After 3–6 months of full-doses of anticoagulants, three strategies were considered: A) lowering the doses; B) maintaining full-doses; C) stopping treatment. The strategy and medication used were shown in a descriptive analysis and the rate of bleeding and VTE-recurrence between those in a comparative analysis.Results A total of 420 patients were included, 56.2% received DOACs, 43.8% enoxaparin. Strategy was defined in 257 patients: A (50.2%), B (46.3%), and C (3.5%). Forty-one (9.8%) had VTE-recurrence and 15 (3.6%) had MB or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB).According to strategy, recurrent-VTE was 8.5% (A), 4.2% (B), and 11.1 (C) (p = 0.22), MB or CRNMB was 0.8% (A), 1.7% (B), and 0% (C) (p = 0.64).Conclusions DOACs and strategy A were the most frequently used agent and strategy, respectively. There were no differences between medications or strategies used. The results must be interpreted with caution, and it is a retrospective single-center study, probably with information and selection bias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clavijo et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: