Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brijesh Patel, C. Bianco, D. Harris, E. Michos, M. Saleem, Mohammad Osman, S. Farid, Stephen V Liu
{"title":"Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Brijesh Patel, C. Bianco, D. Harris, E. Michos, M. Saleem, Mohammad Osman, S. Farid, Stephen V Liu","doi":"10.31487/j.cor.2020.06.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is uncertainty about the choice of anticoagulation therapy in patients with malignancy and venous\nthromboembolism (VTE). While low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) remains the current standard,\ndirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an appealing alternative option. The primary objective\nof this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in patients with\nmalignancy and VTE. The secondary objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of the different\nDOACs. An online search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from\ninception until April 2020 was conducted. Four RCTs encompassing 2,907 patients, (50.5% men and mean\nage of 65.7 ± 10.5) were selected. At a mean follow up of 12 months, moderate certainty evidence showed\nno differences between DOAC and LMWH in VTE recurrence (HR, 0.54 [CI 0.23 to 1.28], I2 = 56%,\np=0.23), in major bleeding (HR, 1.38 [CI 0.45 to 4.22], I2 = 33%, p=0.21) or clinically relevant non-major\nbleeding (CRNMB) (HR, 1.77 [CI 0.49 to 6.40], I2 = 73.9%, p=0.087). There was no difference between\nthe DOACs when compared to each other. In conclusion, DOACs are an acceptable alternative to LMWHs\nfor the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancy.\n","PeriodicalId":10487,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oncology and Research","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oncology and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.cor.2020.06.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

There is uncertainty about the choice of anticoagulation therapy in patients with malignancy and venous thromboembolism (VTE). While low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) remains the current standard, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an appealing alternative option. The primary objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in patients with malignancy and VTE. The secondary objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of the different DOACs. An online search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until April 2020 was conducted. Four RCTs encompassing 2,907 patients, (50.5% men and mean age of 65.7 ± 10.5) were selected. At a mean follow up of 12 months, moderate certainty evidence showed no differences between DOAC and LMWH in VTE recurrence (HR, 0.54 [CI 0.23 to 1.28], I2 = 56%, p=0.23), in major bleeding (HR, 1.38 [CI 0.45 to 4.22], I2 = 33%, p=0.21) or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) (HR, 1.77 [CI 0.49 to 6.40], I2 = 73.9%, p=0.087). There was no difference between the DOACs when compared to each other. In conclusion, DOACs are an acceptable alternative to LMWHs for the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancy.
直接口服抗凝剂治疗与癌症相关的静脉血栓栓塞:系统回顾和荟萃分析
恶性肿瘤和静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)患者抗凝治疗的选择存在不确定性。虽然低分子量肝素(LMWH)仍然是目前的标准,但直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs)已成为一种有吸引力的替代选择。本分析的主要目的是比较DOACs与低分子肝素在恶性肿瘤和静脉血栓栓塞患者中的疗效和安全性。次要目的是比较不同doac的安全性和有效性。对PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov进行了从孕前到2020年4月的在线搜索。4项随机对照试验共纳入2907例患者,其中男性50.5%,平均65.7±10.5例。在平均12个月的随访中,中度确定性证据显示DOAC和低分子肝素在静脉血栓栓塞复发(HR, 0.54 [CI 0.23 ~ 1.28], I2 = 56%,p=0.23)、大出血(HR, 1.38 [CI 0.45 ~ 4.22], I2 = 33%, p=0.21)或临床相关的非大出血(CRNMB) (HR, 1.77 [CI 0.49 ~ 6.40], I2 = 73.9%, p=0.087)方面没有差异。当相互比较时,doac之间没有差异。总之,doac是一种可接受的替代lmwhs治疗静脉血栓栓塞的恶性肿瘤患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信