Key result
Direct oral anticoagulants showed non-inferior efficacy to low molecular weight heparins for cancer-associated thrombosis treatment, but rivaroxaban and edoxaban showed higher bleeding rates.
Why the study?
Cancer-associated thrombosis primary prophylaxis, treatment, and secondary prevention are challenging due to the complexity of cancer patients, who exhibit hypercoagulability alongside heightened bleeding risk.
Do direct oral anticoagulants reduce venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis?
Do direct oral anticoagulants reduce venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis?
DOACs offer a convenient alternative to LMWH for cancer-associated thrombosis with non-inferior efficacy, though they carry a higher bleeding risk, particularly in gastrointestinal cancers.
DOACs may offer convenient CAT alternative to LMWH; leaves open optimal agent selection in GI cancers pending prospective trials.
Introduction: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) refers to the most common thromboembolic complication of cancer which is venous thromboembolism (VTE). CAT primary prophylaxis, treatment, and secondary prevention are challenging for the complexity of cancer patients, who exhibit hypercoagulability with concomitant-heightened bleeding risk.Areas covered: In this review, the author examines the role of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), which have been the standard of care for CAT treatment for many years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) have practical advantages over subcutaneous LMWH, especially for long-term therapy. The author then discusses the results of two RCTs which separately compared the direct oral factor Xa inhibitors, apixaban or rivaroxaban, with placebo for CAT prophylaxis in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients and found that DOACS reduced VTE but increased bleeding. Finally, the author discusses four RCTS separately comparing an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor (edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) with LMWH for CAT treatment. DOACS showed non-inferior efficacy, although rivaroxaban and edoxaban showed higher bleeding rates, especially in gastrointestinal cancers.Expert opinion: DOACS have a convenient route of administration and do not require laboratory monitoring, although choice of anticoagulants for CAT depends on factors such as tumor type, bleeding risk, concomitant drugs, and comorbidities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benilde Cosmi (2020) conducted a review in Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and placebo was evaluated on Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulants showed non-inferior efficacy to low molecular weight heparins for cancer-associated thrombosis treatment, but rivaroxaban and edoxaban showed higher bleeding rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: