Key result
In patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of VTE recurrences compared to LMWH (SHR 0.80; 95% CI 0.37-1.73).
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants as an alternative to LMWHs in most patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, but population-based studies comparing these therapies are scarce.
Does rivaroxaban compared to LMWH improve outcomes in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism?
Cohort (n=2,259)
Does rivaroxaban compared to LMWH improve outcomes in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism?
Hazard Ratio: 0.8 (95% CI 0.37–1.73)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.18% vs 3.39%
In patients with cancer-associated VTE, rivaroxaban has comparable effectiveness and safety to LMWH, supporting its use as a reasonable alternative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rivaroxaban shows comparable VTE recurrence, bleeding, and mortality risks versus LMWH in cancer-associated thrombosis; leaves open whether it should supplant LMWH in guidelines.
Cohen et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (n=2,259). Rivaroxaban vs. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was evaluated on VTE recurrences (SHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.37-1.73). In patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of VTE recurrences compared to LMWH (SHR 0.80; 95% CI 0.37-1.73).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: