Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low‐molecular‐weight heparin for the treatment of cancer‐associated thrombosis: Updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low‐molecular‐weight heparin for the treatment of cancer‐associated thrombosis: Updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Do you wish to request the book?
Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low‐molecular‐weight heparin for the treatment of cancer‐associated thrombosis: Updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low‐molecular‐weight heparin for the treatment of cancer‐associated thrombosis: Updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
2020
Overview
Low‐molecular‐weight‐heparins (LMWHs) have been established for the treatment of cancer‐associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with LMWHs. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWHs and update the evidence for treatment of VTE in cancer.
Biomedical databases were screened for RCTs evaluating DOACs for cancer‐associated VTE. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes of this meta‐analysis were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 6 months. Secondary outcomes comprised clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), major gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary bleeding, mortality, fatal bleeding/pulmonary embolism, and treatment discontinuation rate. We performed prespecified subgroup analyses. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by the Mantel‐Haenszel method within a random‐effect model.
We screened 759 articles and included 4 RCTs (n = 2894). DOACs significantly reduced recurrent VTEs compared to LMWHs (5.2% vs 8.2%; RR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43‐0.91]), but were associated with a nonsignificant increase in major bleedings (4.3% vs 3.3%; RR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.83‐2.08]) and a significant increase in CRNMB (10.4% vs 6.4%; RR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.19‐2.28]). Mortality risks were comparable between groups (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83‐1.18]). Preterm treatment discontinuation was less common with DOACs (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81‐0.96]). Major bleeding was more frequent in patients with GI cancer treated with DOACs (RR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.08‐4.88]).
In patients with cancer‐associated VTE, DOACs are more effective in preventing recurrent VTE compared to LMWH. However, risk of bleeding is increased with DOACs, especially in patients with GI cancer.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Elsevier
