SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2018
Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with active malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer.Blood advances · 2021Guideline
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of cancer associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Risk of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Review
- Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Comparison of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in 376,858 Medically Ill Hospitalized US Patients.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2021Article
- Direct versus conventional anticoagulants for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis: a pooled and interaction analysis between observational studies and randomized clinical trials.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are considered the standard of care for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer. We systematically searched Medline for potential randomized-control clinical trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses. For each study, data on recurrent VTE, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and major bleeding (MB) were extracted. Initially, a total of 1395 citations were identified. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria. The utilization of DOACs in patients with cancer showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence compared to LMWH or warfarin (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.88). Similar rates of major or CRNMB were observed between DOACs and LMWH or warfarin (RR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.75-1.33). There was no significant difference in the rate of MB between DOACs and LMWH or warfarin (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 0.71-2.44). Our results suggest that DOACs might reduce the incidence of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer without putting them at high risk for MB/CRNMB or MB. Our findings were mainly driven by the results of the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial. Given the level of investigated evidence, our findings should be interpreted with caution since the majority of the data were originated from sub-group analyses of large (RCTs). Future studies that are adequately powered are warranted to assess efficacy and safety data of DOACs for the treatment of VTE in patients with different types of cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29948754What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.