Pharmacokinetic variability of anticoagulants in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: Clinical consequences

New-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and clinical impact

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic scenario of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has dramatically changed in recent years, with the approval of new-generation Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSIs), in combination with the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which was the previous standard of care. Despite showing a similar clinical efficacy, ARSIs, all of which are administered orally, are different in terms of pharmacokinetic and drug-drug interactions (DDIs).

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the main pharmacokinetic characteristics of ARSIs that have been approved for the first-line therapy of mHSPC patients, underlying the differences among these molecules and focusing on the known or possible interactions with other drugs. Full-text articles and abstracts were searched in PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

Since prostate cancer occurs mainly in older age, comorbidities and the consequent polypharmacy increase the DDI risk in mHSPC patients who are candidates for ARSI. Waiting for new therapeutic options, in the absence of direct comparisons, pharmacokinetic knowledge is essential to guide clinicians in prescribing ARSI in this setting.

Acute pulmonary embolism in cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit: Impact of anticoagulant treatment on 90-day mortality and risk factors, results of a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening situation in cancer patients. In this situation, anticoagulant therapy is complex to administer due to the risk of bleeding. Only few studies have been conducted when these patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to assess the association between anticoagulation strategies as well as other factors with 90-day mortality in patients with cancer and PE admitted to ICU. Major bleeding was also evaluated according to the type of anticoagulation.

METHODS

Retrospective study carried out in 4 ICUs in France over a 12-year period (2009-2021). All patients with cancer and PE were included. An overlap propensity score weighting analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients treated with either unfractionated heparins (UFH) alone or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) alone on 90-day mortality and major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 218 consecutive cancer patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE were included. The 90-day mortality rate was 42 % for the global cohort. After propensity score analysis in the subgroup of patients treated with either "UFH alone" (n = 80) or "LMWH alone" (n = 71), the 90-day mortality was similar in patients treated with UFH alone (42.6 %) vs LMWH alone (39.9 %): OR = 1.124, CI 95 % [0.571-2.214], p = 0.750. There was a significant increased toward major bleeding rates in the "UFH alone" group (25.5 %) as compared to "LMWH alone" group (11.5 %), p = 0.04.

CONCLUSION

In 218 patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE, the 90-day mortality rate was 42 %. Treatment with UFH alone was associated with a mortality comparable to treatment with LMWH alone but it appeared to be more prone to major bleeding.

[Translation into French and republication of: "Anticoagulant treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism"]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and potentially fatal complication in patients with cancer. During the initial period after the thromboembolic event, a patient receiving anticoagulant treatment is exposed both to a risk of VTE recurrence and also to an elevated bleeding risk conferred by the treatment. For this reason, the choice of anticoagulant is critical. The choice should take into account patient-related factors (such as functional status, age, body mass index, platelet count and renal function), VTE-related factors (such as severity or site), cancer-related factors (such as activity and progression) and treatment related factors (such as drug-drug interactions), which all potentially influence bleeding risk, and patient preference. These should be evaluated carefully for each patient during a multidisciplinary team meeting. For most patients, apixaban or a low molecular-weight heparin is the most appropriate initial choice for anticoagulant treatment. Such treatment should be offered to all patients with active cancer for at least 6months. The patient and treatment should be re-evaluated regularly, and anticoagulant treatment changed when necessary. Continued anticoagulant treatment beyond 6months is justified if the cancer remains active or if the patient experienced recurrence of VTE in the first 6months. In other cases, the interest of continued anticoagulant treatment may be considered on an individual patient basis in collaboration with oncologists.

In Search of the Perfect Thrombosis and Bleeding-Associated Cancer Scale

Thrombosis and bleeding are commonly observed in cancer patients, and their management is crucial for positive patient outcomes. A comprehensive, prophylactic, and therapeutic management of venous thrombosis should focus on identifying the patients who would benefit most from treatment to reduce mortality and minimize the risk of thrombosis recurrence without significantly increasing the risk of bleeding. Existing cancer scales provide valuable information for assessing the overall burden of cancer and guiding treatment decisions, but their ability to predict thrombotic and bleeding events remains limited. With increasing knowledge of the pathophysiology of cancer and the availability of advanced anticancer therapies, new risk factors for cancer-associated thrombosis and bleeding are being identified. In this report, we analyze the current literature and identify new risk factors for venous thrombosis and bleeding which are not included in routinely used risk scores. While some existing cancer scales partially capture the risk of thrombosis and bleeding, there is a need for more specific and accurate scales tailored to these complications. The development of such scales could improve risk stratification, aid in treatment selection, and enhance patient care. Therefore, further research and development of novel cancer scales focused on thrombosis and bleeding are warranted to optimize patient management and outcomes.

Oral Anticoagulants Beyond Warfarin

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists, mostly warfarin, for the main indications for oral anticoagulation, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, and prevention of embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation. While DOACs offer practical, fixed-dose anticoagulation in many patients, specific restrictions or contraindications may apply. DOACs are not sufficiently effective in high-thrombotic risk conditions such as antiphospholipid syndrome and mechanical heart valves. Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis may benefit from DOACs, but the bleeding risk, particularly in those with gastrointestinal or urogenital tumors, must be carefully weighed. In patients with frailty, excess body weight, and/or moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, DOACs must be cautiously administered and may require laboratory monitoring. Reversal agents have been developed and approved for life-threatening bleeding. In addition, the clinical testing of potentially safer anticoagulants such as factor XI(a) inhibitors is important to further optimize anticoagulant therapy in an increasingly elderly and frail population worldwide.

Anticoagulant treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and potentially fatal complication in patients with cancer. During the initial period after the thromboembolic event, a patient receiving anticoagulant treatment is exposed both to a risk of VTE recurrence and also to an elevated bleeding risk conferred by the treatment. For this reason, the choice of anticoagulant is critical. The choice should take into account patient-related factors (such as functional status, age, body mass index, platelet count and renal function), VTE-related factors (such as severity or site), cancer-related factors (such as activity and progression) and treatment-related factors (such as drug-drug interactions), which all potentially influence bleeding risk, and patient preference. These should be evaluated carefully for each patient during a multidisciplinary team meeting. For most patients, apixaban or a low molecular-weight heparin is the most appropriate initial choice for anticoagulant treatment. Such treatment should be offered to all patients with active cancer for at least six months. The patient and treatment should be re-evaluated regularly and anticoagulant treatment changed when necessary. Continued anticoagulant treatment beyond six months is justified if the cancer remains active or if the patient experienced recurrence of VTE in the first six months. In other cases, the interest of continued anticoagulant treatment may be considered on an individual patient basis in collaboration with oncologists.

Cancer-associated thrombosis and drug-drug interactions of antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri-surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high-risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient-based approach. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis. Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow-up and during peri-surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis. Many parameters, such as drug-drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs. More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need.

Primary prevention of cancer-associated venous thrombosis: Rationale and challenges in clinical practice

Cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT) is a common, multifactor event known to complicate the course of cancer and jeopardize a patient's prognosis. The current guidelines regarding the prevention of CAT are sometimes considered insufficiently precise about specific situations, or are poorly applied. The expected benefits of thromboprophylaxis are balanced by the risk of major bleeding induced by anticoagulation, which implies a need to accurately identify ambulatory patients at high risk of thrombosis or hemorrhage. The Khorana score is commonly used for this, but is limited by the non-reproducibility of predicted performance across cancer types, and by the fact that antitumor treatment and cardiovascular risks are not included. The COMPASS-CAT score, which includes those two aspects, was found to be a more accurate predictor of venous thromboembolism in patients with lung cancer, and to better distinguish between patients at low or high risk of thrombosis. The frailty of patients with cancer is also a major issue, and should be taken into account when thromboprophylaxis is considered. According to current guidelines, CAT prophylaxis should be considered for hospitalized patients, those for whom surgery is scheduled, or those with pancreatic cancers. In ambulatory patients, decisions should be made according to patient, cancer and antitumoral treatment characteristics. Low molecular weight heparin is the gold standard of CAT prophylaxis. Despite increased risks of bleeding or drug-drug interactions in cancer patients, direct oral anticoagulants could be alternate options for high-risk ambulatory patients that should be accompanied by a careful global analysis of benefits, harms, and patient preferences.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Amikacin in Neutropenic Oncology Patients

Amikacin is the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of Gram-negative infections, namely, those in neutropenic oncology patients. No populational pharmacokinetic studies are currently available reporting amikacin pharmacokinetics in neutropenic oncology patients despite their specific pathophysiological features and treatments. A large-scale retrospective study was herein conducted to specifically investigate the effects that tumor diseases have on the pharmacokinetic parameters of amikacin and identify whether chemotherapy, the lag time between administration of chemotherapy and amikacin, age and renal function contribute to amikacin pharmacokinetics in neutropenic cancer patients. A total of 1180 pharmacokinetic analysis from 629 neutropenic patients were enrolled. The daily dose administered to oncology patients was higher than that administered to non-oncology patients (p < 0.0001). No statistical differences were found in amikacin concentrations, probably because drug clearance was increased in cancer patients (p < 0.0001). Chemotherapy influenced amikacin pharmacokinetics and drug clearance decreased as the lag time enhanced. The elderly group revealed no statistical differences between the doses administered to both the oncology groups, suggesting that the impact of ageing is stronger than chemotherapy. Our research suggests that cancer patients require higher initial doses of amikacin, as well as when chemotherapy is received less than 30 days before amikacin treatment has started.

[Prophylaxis and management of cancer-associated thrombosis: Practical issues about anticoagulant use]

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication resulting from various vascular mechanisms related to cancer, antitumoral therapy and patient status, and is associated with a poor prognosis. Anticoagulants recommended for CAT treatment or prevention mainly include low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Regarding thromboprophylaxis, a situation for which LMWH is a preferred option due to a lower risk of hemorrhage especially in patients with unresected gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary malignancies, the identification of patients at risk is a major issue. For patients with established CAT, the main issue is the choice of the most appropriate anticoagulant therapy. Because of the convenience of oral formulation, DOACs are an attractive option, and their efficacy has been shown in randomized trials. However, such studies are limited by selection biases, which make the analyzed population not representative of the real-life setting, as for instance cancers associated with a high risk of hemorrhage, or antitumoral therapies (e.g., tyrosine kinase inhibitors) known to interact with DOACs and then modifying their bioavailability. Caution associated with DOAC use is highlighted by most updated guidelines that recommend a case-by-case-based approach. The aim of the present paper is to help the oncologists make the most appropriate decision regarding the choice of anticoagulant therapy in a context of thromboprophylaxis or established CAT management in a patient with a solid tumor. The main issues are addressed through key practical questions, the answers of which are based on the current guidelines and additional published data or expert opinions.

Practical Considerations for the Management of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Guide for the General Oncology Practitioner

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism is a devastating complication of cancer and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The cornerstone of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism treatment is anticoagulation, and in recent years, there have been notable randomized clinical trials that have revealed insights into the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants and low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Deciding on the ideal anticoagulation treatment plan for a patient with a cancer-associated thrombosis is a complex task that requires an understanding of clinical trial data, society guidelines, and, most importantly, consideration of many cancer-related, treatment-related, and patient-related factors. This article summarizes important factors to consider when deciding on anticoagulation therapy for a patient with cancer-associated thrombosis.

Complexity and clinical significance of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in oncology: challenging issues in the care of patients regarding cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT)

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation management includes prophylactic or therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, the management of thrombosis in patients with cancer is complex due to various individual and disease-related factors, including drug–drug interactions (DDIs). Furthermore, DDIs may impact both, cancer and venous thrombosis, treatment effectiveness and safety; their relevance is highlighted by the advances in cancer therapeutics. Given that these new oncology drugs are extensively used, more attention should be given to monitoring potential DDIs to minimize risks. Recognition of DDIs is of utmost importance in an era of rapid developments in cancer treatments and introduction of novel treatments and protocols. When managing cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), the concomitant use of a DOAC and a moderate or strong modulator (inhibitor or inducer) of CYP3A4 or a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is most likely to be associated with significant DDIs. Therefore, LMWHs remain the first-line option for the long-term management of CAT under these circumstances and physicians must consider utilizing LMWHs as first line. This review describes the risk of DDIs and their potential impact and outcomes in patients with cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) receiving anticoagulation.

Evaluating pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with renal dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Drug transporters, metabolic enzymes, and renal clearance play significant roles in the pharmacokinetics of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Recommendations for DOAC drug-drug interactions (DDIs) by the product labeling are limited to selected CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors and lack considerations for concomitant renal dysfunction.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on: 1) current recommendations for the management of pharmacokinetic DOAC DDIs and the evidence used to support them; 2) alterations in DOAC exposure in the setting of concomitant DDIs and mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment; 3) clinical outcomes associated with this combination; and 4) expert recommendations for the management of pharmacokinetic DOAC DDIs. English-language, full-text articles on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban with a publication date up to 30 September 2021 were retrieved from PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the lack of supporting clinical data, empiric dose adjustments based on pharmacokinetic data alone should be avoided. When a considerable increase in a DOAC exposure is anticipated, it may be advisable to use an alternative DOAC or anticoagulant from a different class. Future research on identification of DOAC therapeutic ranges and target patient populations is needed to inform clinical utility of DOAC level monitoring to guide the management of DDIs.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and direct oral anticoagulants: In vitro evaluation of drug-drug interaction mediated by P-glycoprotein

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now an option in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in patients with active cancer. Pharmacokinetics of DOACs are largely influenced by efflux transporters derived from ABC transporters, notably by P-glycoprotein (P-gp). The aim of this study was to assess the potential P-gp-mediated drug-drug interactions between 11 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with apixaban and rivaroxaban. Bidirectional permeabilities of apixaban and rivaroxaban were investigated across MDCK-MDR1 models, to determine half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀ ). Several categories of interaction risks based on IC₅₀ values can be distinguished depending on the TKI and DOAC used. IC₅₀ values of less than 10 μM were observed with the combination of erlotinib, nilotinib with both DOACs, and with dabrafenib and apixaban. IC₅₀ values between 10 and 100 μM were seen for axitinib, crizotinib, dasatinib, imatinib, and lapatinib with apixaban, and for axitinib, crizotinib, dabrafenib, idelalisib, imatinib, and vemurafenib with rivaroxaban. A risk of drug-drug interaction was found in vitro between TKIs and DOACs. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies are needed to ensure the safety of prescribing DOACs in cancer patients on TKI therapy, in order to avoid major, potentially preventable bleeding events.

The impact of advanced age on anticoagulant therapy for acute venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Management of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) has been completely changed after the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). VTE is common in the geriatric population, but the management of DOACs remains complex because of the lack of specific data in this polymedicated fragile population.An exhaustive search of anticoagulants in the indication of VTE was performed on PubMed, including data from clinical trials, observational studies, real-world data, drug-drug interaction studies, as well as various guidelines from scientific societies.

AREAS COVERED

The present review aims to summarize our current knowledge on the era of DOACs in the management of VTE in the elderly. This involves learning the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of drugs specific to geriatrics, the problem of drug-drug interactions, and the main randomized clinical trials validating the use of DOACs.

EXPERT OPINION

DOACs have become an essential part of the management of VTE in the elderly, both for their efficacy and safety. However, we are faced with a list of unmet needs, such as the relevance of DOACs in the very elderly, cancer patients, and those with renal impairment. Clinicians and pharmacists must remain cautious about comedications, as well as about the patient's comorbidities.

Treatment Strategy for Cancer-associated Venous Thromboembolism During Chemotherapy: The Keep ACT2 Concept

BACKGROUND/AIM

The frequency of detecting cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) during chemotherapy is increasing. It is not desirable to discontinue chemotherapy for CAT. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of simultaneous progression of anticoagulant and anticancer therapy, focusing on drug interactions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with gastroenterological CAT from February 2017 to December 2020 at the Gifu University Hospital. When both chemotherapy and CAT treatments using edoxaban were performed in parallel and the thrombus disappeared, patients were defined as being Keep-ACT ² (keeping anticancer therapy and anticoagulant therapy) successful. The effect and safety of treatment strategy focusing on cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism using edoxaban were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients with CAT during chemotherapy were treated with edoxaban. Keep-ACT ² was successful in 101 (88.6%) cases. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was observed in 5 cases (4.4%). All 114 patients were using some drug affected by CYP metabolism, and the median number of affected cases was 5.

CONCLUSION

Combined use of edoxaban for CAT may lead to sustainable therapy for gastroenterological cancer patients who are administered several drugs.

Incidence, risk factors, and management of bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis

Updated clinical practice guidelines recommend the long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparins or direct oral anticoagulants as the preferred option for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), using a personalized approach matching the right drug to the right patient. In most cases, the benefit of anticoagulant therapy outweighs the risk. However, the long-term use of anticoagulants is associated with a non-negligible risk of bleeding, which constitutes a rare but serious adverse effect. Bleeding complications have been reported to be overall 2 to 3 times more frequent in cancer patients with CAT receiving anticoagulation than in non-cancer patients, with a reported incidence of major bleeding ranging from 2.4 to 16.0% in randomized controlled trials (RCT). In the absence of validated risk assessment model to predict the risk of bleeding in these patients, a careful evaluation of each individual profile, with adequate selection of the most appropriate anticoagulant for each individual patient, is warranted for overcoming management challenges, taking in account the numerous factors which may potentiate the overall bleeding risk in these complex patients, such as advanced or metastatic disease, older age, anemia, thrombocytopenia, renal impairment, liver dysfunction, and concomitant anticancer therapies. The purpose of this review is to call for awareness on bleeding complications as a major safety issue of CAT treatment and to summarize data from recent RCT and real-world studies on the incidence and risk factors for bleeding in this unique and challenging population to further help clinicians in decision-making.

Arguments for Using Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolism

(1) Background: Patients with cancer with a hypercoagulable state present an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Neoplastic patients with concurrent VTE undergoing anticoagulant treatment face a series of issues. (2) The aim of the present paper is to systematically summarize current VTE management in patients with neoplasia and to review the current clinical evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and guidelines regarding the administration of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for cancer-associated VTE. (3) Search Strategy: We performed a review on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and guidelines in favor of the administration of DOACs in patients with cancer-associated VTE published in the last 6 years in the Medline (PubMed) and Embase databases. (4) Results: 21 meta-analyses, 14 randomized controlled studies comparing DOACs to VKAs and LMWH, and 7 national and international guidelines were identified. We identified five studies that show the antineoplastic effect of DOAC on experimental models. (5) Conclusions: DOACs can be seen as the first choice for VTE treatment in neoplastic patients who have a low risk of bleeding, who do not have severe renal impairment, and who are not undergoing treatments that could interact with DOAC’s mechanism of action.

[Actual use of direct oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease]

Direct oral anticoagulants recently became the first-line choice for anticoagulation in venous thromboembolic disease. Many studies have shown its non-inferiority regarding the risk of thromboembolic recurrence compared to anti-vitamin K without increasing the risk of bleeding in the general population. However, specific populations such as patients with cancer, patients with kidney failure, patients with constitutional thrombophilia, elderly patients, or patients with extreme weight are at risk of intolerance to the use of direct oral anticoagulants. Precautions in use may be necessary as discussed in recently published guidelines about antiphospholipid syndrome. This review aims to list the main clinical trials investigating direct oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease in the general population and populations at risk, as well as to provide an update on current international and French guidelines.

Thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis associated with immunomodulators in multiple myeloma patients: a real-life study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess international guidelines implementation concerning thromboprophylaxis strategy in myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs.

METHODS

This retrospective study includes multiple myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs between 2014 and 2017 in the Hematology department of a teaching hospital (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) and followed by the multidisciplinary care plan for cancer outpatients ONCORAL (ONCological care for outpatients with ORAL anticancer drugs). Data from immunomodulatory drugs administration, thromboprophylaxis strategy and thrombotic events were collected from medical files. Adherence to 2010 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines was assessed.

RESULTS

213 patients received at least one immunomodulatory drug: lenalidomide (60.9%), pomalidomide (24.0%) and thalidomide (15.1%). About two third of treatment lines (66.2%) were in accordance with IMWG recommendations. Among the others, 30.5% and 69.5% had thromboprophylaxis, respectively, superior or inferior to IMWG recommendations. 37 venous thrombotic events and 4 arterial thromboembolisms (one patient experienced both a stroke and deep venous thrombosis simultaneously) were reported.

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis was systematically performed in myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs in this real-life retrospective cohort. However, the choice of anticoagulant or anti-platelet agent remains debatable, as adherence to existing guidelines was variable.

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with cancer

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients after tumor progression. The treatment of CAT is challenging because of a high risk of VTE recurrence, a high risk of bleeding, common presence of comorbidities, poly-medication, and potential drug-drug interactions (DDI). Since 2018, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a promising therapeutic alternative and have been recently included into the 2019 update of the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME) clinical practice guidelines for management of CAT. However, pharmacokinetic studies suggest that concomitant treatment with P-gp or CYP3A4 inhibitors will result in an increased exposure to rivaroxaban and apixaban, but the clinical relevance of these studies is unknown. In addition, there is an important inter-individual variability in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination, even more in cancer patients. Overall, the risk of pharmacokinetic DDI should be estimated based on several individual (patient age, renal and liver function, number of comedications) and diseases-related factors, including inflammation, sarcopenia, and low body weight. In this context, DDI with clinical implications could be expected with anti-neoplastic agents or supportive care treatments, especially with drugs known to be moderate or strong inhibitors/inducers of CYP3A4 and P-gp. Consequently, in the presence of potential DDIs through CYP3A4, and/or P-gp, LMWHs remain the first-line anticoagulant of choice for the long-term treatment of CAT. Multidisciplinary consultation meetings and therapeutic patient education should be emphasized in the complex management of CAT.

Drug-Drug Interactions of 257 Antineoplastic and Supportive Care Agents With 7 Anticoagulants: A Comprehensive Review of Interactions and Mechanisms

Data on drug–drug interactions (DDI) of antineoplastic drugs with anticoagulants is scarce. We aim to evaluate factors associated with DDI of antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with anticoagulants resulting in modification of pharmacokinetics of these last mentioned. A literature review on DDI databases and summaries of products characteristics (SmPC) was done. Drug–drug interactions of 257 antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), warfarin, enoxaparin, or fondaparinux were categorized as no clinically significant expected DDI, potentially weak DDI, potentially clinically significant DDI, and recommendation against coadministration. Logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association between the dependent variable potentially clinically significant interaction/recommendation against coadministration and the mechanisms of DDI. Of the 1799 associations, 84.4% were absence of DDI, 3.6% potentially weak DDI, 10.2% potentially clinically relevant DDI, and 2.0% recommendation against coadministration. Warfarin has higher DDI potential than other anticoagulants. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux have fewer DDI than others. There was no difference between DOACs. Drug–drug interactions with apixaban and rivaroxaban was independently associated with the absence of CYP3A4 competition, P-glycoprotein inhibition, CYP3A4 induction, and drug class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Drug–drug interactions with dabigatran and edoxaban was associated with inhibition of P-glycoprotein and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Warfarin, induction of CYP3A4, and inhibition of CYP2C9. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux, only tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants did not differ regarding DDI with antineoplastic agents. Warfarin presented more DDI than other anticoagulants. P-glycoprotein inhibition and CYP3A4 induction were independently associated with DDI of antineoplastic agents with DOACs.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer Patients. Time for a Change in Paradigm

Thrombosis is a more common occurrence in cancer patients compared to the general population and is one of the main causes of death in these patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the recognized standard treatment for more than a decade, both in cancer-related thrombosis and in its prevention. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a new option for anticoagulation therapy. Recently published results of large randomized clinical trials have confirmed that DOAC may be a reasonable alternative to LMWH in cancer patients. The following review summarizes the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of DOAC in the treatment and prevention of cancer-related thrombosis. It also draws attention to the limitations of this group of drugs, knowledge of which will facilitate the selection of optimal therapy.

Venous Thromboembolism Treatment and Prevention in Cancer Patients: Can We Use Pills Yet?

OPINION STATEMENT

Cancer increases a patient's risk for developing a venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is a relatively common finding in this population. Traditionally, anticoagulants used to treat VTE have included low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA). However, within the last several years, a newer class of anticoagulant, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), has emerged as a potential option for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. While data is still limited and evolving, DOACs offer several benefits that are worth considering, including ease of administration and similar efficacy compared to LMWH in preventing recurrent VTE. However, some studies have reported a notable risk of increased bleeding associated with the use of DOACs. Additional studies are underway to evaluate the role of DOACs compared to LMWH in the setting of cancer. In our practice, based on existing data, we have been using DOACs for the chronic treatment of acute VTE and prevention of recurrent VTE in patients who do not have contraindications to anticoagulation and do not have severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min). For cancer patients admitted to the hospital with an acute medical illness, we use LMWH for primary prevention of VTE. In the perioperative setting, for patients undergoing major surgery with an active cancer, we prefer pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, although there is some emerging evidence that DOACs may be safe in this setting.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: Why Clinical Practice Guidelines Should Be Implemented

Exocrine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, simply referred to as pancreatic cancer (PC) has the worst prognosis of any malignancy. Despite recent advances in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in PC, the prognosis remains poor, with fewer than 8% of patients being alive at 5 years after diagnosis. The prevalence of PC has steadily increased over the past decades, and it is projected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. In this context, optimizing and integrating supportive care is important to improve quality of life and survival. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but preventable complication in PC patients. VTE occurs in one out of five PC patients and is associated with significantly reduced progression-free survival and overall survival. The appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis can drastically and safely reduce the rates of VTE in PC patients as shown from subgroup analysis of non-PC targeted placebo-controlled randomized trials of cancer patients and from two dedicated controlled randomized trials in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, primary thromboprophylaxis with a Grade 1B evidence level is recommended in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy by the International Initiative on Cancer and Thrombosis clinical practice guidelines since 2013. However, its use and potential significant clinical benefit continues to be underrecognized worldwide. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the field including on the use of individualized risk assessment models to stratify the risk of VTE in each patient with individual available treatment options.

Management of cancer-related thrombosis in the era of direct oral anticoagulants: A comprehensive review of the 2019 ITAC-CME clinical practice guidelines. On behalf of the Groupe Francophone Thrombose et Cancer (GFTC)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease complication in cancer patients and the second cause of death after cancer progression. VTE management and prophylaxis are critical in cancer patients, but effective therapy can be challenging because these patients are at higher risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding under anticoagulant treatment. Numerous published studies report inconsistent implementation of existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG), including underutilization of thromboprophylaxis, and wide variability in clinical practice patterns across different countries and various practitioners. This review aims to summarize the 2019 ITAC-CME evidence-based CPGs for treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-related VTE, which include recommendations on the use of direct oral anticoagulants specifically in cancer patients. The guidelines underscore the gravity of developing VTE in cancer and recommend the best approaches for treating and preventing cancer-associated VTE, while minimizing unnecessary or over-treatment. Greater adherence to the 2019 ITAC guidelines could substantially decrease the burden of VTE and improve survival of cancer patients.

Multiple Myeloma and Thrombosis: Prophylaxis and Risk Prediction Tools

Thromboembolism in multiple myeloma (MM) patients remains a common complication that renders the optimization of our thromboprophylaxis practice necessary. This review aims to make clear the need for the development of more accurate risk assessment tools and means of thrombosis prevention. Current clinical practice is guided by available guidelines published by the IMWG in 2014, but the extent to which these are implemented is unclear. Recently, several groups developed clinical scores for thrombosis risk in MM in an attempt to improve risk stratification, but these have not been validated or used in clinical practice so far. Research in this field is increasingly focusing on understanding the unique coagulation profile of the MM patient, and data on potential biomarkers that accurately reflect hypercoagulability is emerging. Finally, promising evidence on the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the context of thrombosis prevention in MM patients is increasingly becoming available. The critical appraisal of the above research areas will establish the necessity of combining disease-specific clinical risk factors with coagulation biomarkers to allow more effective risk stratification that will eventually lead to the reduction of this significant complication. Results from ongoing clinical trials on the role of DOACs are much anticipated.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Beyond HOKUSAI

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent an attractive alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) since they avoid the burden of daily injections. Analyses in subgroups of cancer patients from large randomized trials suggested that DOACs were at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists, while indirect comparisons suggested that DOACs' efficacy and safety profile were comparable to those of LMWHs. In the randomized controlled HOKUSAI-VTE Cancer study, currently the only completed phase III trial on DOACs in CT patients, edoxaban was shown noninferior to dalteparin on the composite primary endpoint of time to first recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization. Study results suggest that both agents had comparable benefit/risk ratio in patients with CT. Even though this conclusion was valid from a strict statistical viewpoint, it was potentially misleading when interpreting benefit/risk ratios. Besides the obvious heterogeneity of the study population (e.g., 23% of patients no longer had cancer) and significantly different treatment durations between arms, secondary outcomes for efficacy were in favor of edoxaban for recurrent deep-vein thrombosis but not for recurrent pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding episodes were significantly more frequent in the edoxaban group, with an excess of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding episodes observed mainly but not only in patients with GI cancers. More research is needed regarding specific patients' profiles, cancer types, and treatment period to better clarify the respective roles of DOACs and LMWHs in CT patients.

Atrial Fibrillation in Active Cancer Patients: Expert Position Paper and Recommendations

Improvements in survival among cancer patients have revealed the clinical impact of cardiotoxicity on both cardiovascular and hematological and oncological outcomes, especially when it leads to the interruption of highly effective antitumor therapies. Atrial fibrillation is a common complication in patients with active cancer and its treatment poses a major challenge. These patients have an increased thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk but standard stroke prediction scores have not been validated in this population. The aim of this expert consensus-based document is to provide a multidisciplinary and practical approach to the prevention and treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with active cancer. This is a position paper of the Spanish Cardio-Oncology working group and the Spanish Thrombosis working group, drafted in collaboration with experts from the Spanish Society of Cardiology, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, and the Spanish Society of Hematology.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

A New Test for the Detection of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (Rivaroxaban and Apixaban) in the Emergency Room Setting

Determining whether a patient has taken a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) is critical during the periprocedural and preoperative period in the emergency department. However, the inaccessibility of complete medical records, along with the generally inconsistent sensitivity of conventional coagulation tests to these drugs, complicates clinical decision making and puts patients at risk of uncontrollable bleeding. In this study, we evaluate the utility of inhibitor-II-X (i-II-X), a novel, microfluidics-based diagnostic assay for the detection and identification of Factor Xa inhibitors (FXa-Is) in an acute care setting.

DESIGN

First-in-human, 91-patient, single-center retrospective pilot study.

SETTING

Emergency room.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted into the emergency department, which received any clinician-ordered coagulation test requiring a 3.2% buffered sodium citrate blood collection tube.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Plasma samples from patients admitted to the emergency department were screened for the use of FXa-Is, including apixaban and rivaroxaban, within the past 24 hours using our new i-II-X microfluidic test. i-II-X results were then compared with results from conventional coagulation tests, including prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR), which were ordered by treating clinicians, and an anti-Xa assay for rivaroxaban. The i-II-X test detected DOACs in samples collected from the emergency department with 95.20% sensitivity and 100.00% specificity. Unlike PT and INR, i-II-X reliably identified patients who had prolonged clotting times secondary to the presence of a FXa-I.

CONCLUSIONS

The i-II-X test overcomes the limitations of currently available coagulation tests and could be a useful tool by which to routinely screen patients for DOACs in emergency and critical care settings. Our new diagnostic approach is particularly relevant in clinical situations where medical records may be unavailable, or where precautions need to be taken prior to invasive interventions, such as specific reversal agent administration.

Recent advances in the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: role of the direct oral anticoagulants and their unique challenges

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and is associated with poor prognosis. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are the standard of care for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Primary VTE prophylaxis with LMWH is recommended after cancer surgery and in hospitalized patients with reduced mobility. However, owing to wide variations in VTE and bleeding risk, based on disease stage, anti-cancer treatments, and individual patient characteristics, routine primary prophylaxis is not recommended in ambulatory cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Efforts are under way to validate risk assessment models that will help identify those patients in whom the benefits of primary prophylaxis will outweigh the risks. In recent months, long-awaited dedicated clinical trials assessing the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer have reported promising results. In comparison with the LMWHs, the DOACs were reported to be non-inferior to prevent VTE recurrence. However, there was an increased risk of bleeding, particularly in gastrointestinal cancers. Safe and optimal treatment with the DOACs in the patient with cancer will require vigilant patient selection based on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and the potential for drug-drug interactions.

Recent Advances in the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: New Hopes but New Challenges

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients and leads to a significant increase in health care costs. Cancer patients often suffer from multiple co-morbidities and have both a greater risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding compared to non-cancer patients. Anticoagulation is therefore challenging. For many years, long-term therapy with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) was the standard of care for the management of cancer-associated VTE. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), which offer the convenience of an oral administration and have a rapid onset of action, have recently been proposed as a new option in this setting. Head-to-head comparisons between DOAC and LMWHs for the treatment of established VTE are now available, and data on the efficacy and safety of these drugs for primary prophylaxis of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy are emerging. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated VTE, including recent data on the use of individualized factors to stratify the risk of VTE in each individual patient, quality-of-life in patients treated with LMWH, and the place that DOACs will likely take in the cancer-associated VTE management landscape.

Treatment and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in Frail Patients: Tailored Management

Advanced age is one of the major determinants of frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, multiple other factors contribute to frailty in these patients. The identification of frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis is critical as it influences the complexity of the anticoagulant treatment in this population at high risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding. Factors that contribute to frailty in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis include age, type of cancer, comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease, poly-pharmacotherapy, treatment compliance, cognitive impairment, anemia, thrombocytopenia, mobility, nutritional status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group grade, risk of falls, and reduced life expectancy. In the absence of specific clinical studies current anticoagulant treatment guidelines for the management are not fully applicable to frail patients with cancer. The anticoagulant treatment should therefore benefit from a tailored approach based on an algorithm that takes into account the specificities of the malignant disease.