Apixaban in Japanese patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a multi-center phase II trial

Risk of intracranial hemorrhage with direct oral anticoagulation versus low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of brain tumor-associated venous thromboembolism: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in treating cancer-related thrombosis and are superior to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in terms of efficacy. The effects of DOACs or LMWH on intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain uncertain in individuals with brain tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the frequency of ICH in individuals with brain tumors treated with DOACs or LMWH.

METHODS

Two independent investigators reviewed all studies that compared the frequency of ICH in patients with brain tumors who received DOACs or LMWH. The primary outcome was the incidence of ICH. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the combined effect and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

This study encompassed six articles. The results indicated that cohorts treated with DOAC experienced much fewer instances of ICH compared to the LMWH cohorts (relative risk [RR] 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.65; P = 0.0003; I2 = 0%). The same effect was observed for the prevalence of major ICH (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12-0.97; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference for fatal ICH. Subgroup analysis indicated that DOACs had a substantially reduced incidence of ICH in primary brain tumors (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.50; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%), but had no impact on ICH with secondary brain tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that DOACs are associated with a lower risk of ICH than LMWH therapy in treating venous thromboembolism associated with brain tumors, especially in patients with primary brain tumors.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) could effectively prevent the occurrence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAVTE), which incidence rate was estimated to be 4-20%. But the efficacy and safety remain controversial between DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched from inception to March 15, 2022. A random-effects model was used to report the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for both direct and network meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included totaling 3242 patients. A lower rate of recurrence VTE was noted in the DOACs compared with LMWH (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.82, I²=0.0%). The aspect of major bleeding (MB) was similar (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.77-2.18, I²=34.9%). When assessing clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.22, I²=20.7%) and clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.11-1.74, I²=0.0%), a higher risk of events was observed in DOACs. In subgroup analyses, the MB of gastrointestinal and genitourinary malignancies had a higher rate in the DOACs. For ranking, apixaban ranked the first in prevention of VTE and reducing MB events. Edoxaban had the highest risk drug in MB. In terms of CRNMB and CRB, LMWH showed the lowest risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LMWH, DOACs seemed to have a decreased risk of recurrence VTE while increasing CRNMB and CRB. DOACs and LMWH were equivalent to the aspect of MB, but DOACs had a higher MB risk in patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary malignancies. Apixaban may be the lowest risk compared to the other DOACs in precaution of VTE and reducing bleeding events.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in patients with venous thromboembolism: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), direct comparison of these drugs with edoxaban is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in patients with VTE.

PATIENTS/METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study using a Japanese hospital administrative database, we identified three mutually exclusive groups of patients with VTE beginning treatment with edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. Primary effectiveness outcome was recurrent VTE, and principal safety outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. Subjects were followed for up to 180 days. Baseline characteristics among groups were balanced using propensity score matching weights.

RESULTS

Three thousand three hundred sixty-nine edoxaban, 1592 rivaroxaban, and 1998 apixaban initiators were identified. There were no significant differences among the three drugs in the prevention of recurrent VTE (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.30 for edoxaban vs. rivaroxaban; aIRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.56 for edoxaban vs. apixaban; and aIRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.69-2.10 for rivaroxaban vs. apixaban), or in the risk of intracranial hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding (aIRR, 1.57, 95% CI, 0.85-2.90 for edoxaban vs. rivaroxaban; aIRR, 1.30, 95% CI, 0.76-2.23 for edoxaban vs. apixaban; and aIRR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.42-1.64 for rivaroxaban vs. apixaban).

CONCLUSIONS

In routine care, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban appear to have similar effectiveness and safety in the treatment of VTE.