Net clinical benefit of DOACs vs. usual anticoagulation treatment in venous thromboembolism and active cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with active cancer are at high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Usual treatment includes low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), while vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have also been used as substitutes for LMWH. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are considered a beneficial alternative to the usual treatment but are accompanied by an increased rate of bleeding compared to LMWH. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and harms under a common denomination, namely the net clinical benefit (NCB), between DOACs and usual anticoagulation. The primary outcome was NCB-1, defined as non-fatal VTE, major non-fatal bleedings, and all-cause mortality). Co-primary outcomes were 1) NCB-2 (i.e., NCB-1 and clinically relevant non-major bleedings) and 2) NCB-3 (i.e., fatal or non-fatal VTE and major bleedings). A random-effects model was used to calculate outcome risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number CRD42021284238. We selected 8 studies (n = 4,4461 patients; mean follow-up, 6 months). The NCB-1 and -2 were not different between DOACs and usual anticoagulation, while the NCB-3 showed a reduction of 28% (95% CI, 10-42%), favoring DOACs. Recurrent VTE was reduced by 40% (95% CI, 25-53%) with DOACs than the usual treatment. Different bleeding outcomes and all-cause mortality were not different between treatments. All primary outcomes did not differ between DOACs and LMWH, while NCB-2 and NCB-3 were reduced with DOACs than VKAs. The NCB of DOACs was similar or more favorable to usual anticoagulation in patients with active cancer due to a substantial reduction of VTE and no bleeding excess.