Key result
Direct oral anticoagulants showed no significant difference in recurrent thrombosis (6.3% vs 7.2%, p=0.71) or major bleeding (2.6% vs 7.6%, p=0.08) compared to low-molecular-weight heparins.
Why the study?
Does direct oral anticoagulant use reduce recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis?
Population
480 adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (VTE) treated between 2010 and 2016 at the Ohio State University
Comparison
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
May support DOAC use versus LMWH in select lower-risk cancer VTE; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=480)
No
Does direct oral anticoagulant use reduce recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding compared to low-molecular-weight heparin in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.3% vs 7.2%
p-value: p=0.71
In a select population of cancer patients with VTE, DOACs appear as effective and safe as standard therapy with LMWH, though DOAC patients had lower baseline risk.
Phelps et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in cancer-associated thrombosis (n=480). Direct oral anticoagulants vs. Low-molecular-weight heparins was evaluated on recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (p=0.71). Direct oral anticoagulants showed no significant difference in recurrent thrombosis (6.3% vs 7.2%, p=0.71) or major bleeding (2.6% vs 7.6%, p=0.08) compared to low-molecular-weight heparins.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: