Key result
Among Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, NOAC use was associated with a similar risk of composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with enoxaparin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.07; P=.11).
Why the study?
It was unclear whether the clinical benefits associated with NOACs are similar to those associated with LMWHs in Asian individuals with cancer and acute VTE.
Does use of a NOAC reduce recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with enoxaparin in Asian individuals with cancer-associated VTE?
Population
1109 Asian patients with cancer and newly diagnosed VTE in Taiwan
Comparison
NOACs vs LMWH enoxaparin
Design
Multi-institutional retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
NOACs were associated with similar recurrent VTE/major bleeding risks but lower GI bleeding versus enoxaparin; extends real-world Asian data but should not yet change practice.
Cohort (n=1,109)
Yes
Does use of a NOAC reduce recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with enoxaparin in Asian individuals with cancer-associated VTE?
Hazard Ratio: 0.77 (95% CI 0.56–1.07)
Absolute Event Rate: 14.1% vs 17.4%
p-value: p=.11
In Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, NOACs showed similar rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding compared to enoxaparin, but with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.
Chen et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (n=1,109). NOACs vs. LMWH enoxaparin was evaluated on composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56-1.07, p=.11). Among Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, NOAC use was associated with a similar risk of composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with enoxaparin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.07; P=.11).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: