SynthesisCardiovascular drugs and therapy2026
Apixaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: An Indication-Stratified Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Treatment and Postoperative Prophylaxis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApixaban is increasingly used as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with cancer, but evidence spans distinct clinical settings, including treatment of established cancer-associated thrombosis/venous thromboembolism (CAT/VTE) and postoperative thromboprophylaxis. We performed an indication-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis comparing apixaban with LMWH in patients with cancer.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2026 for comparative studies evaluating apixaban versus LMWH in adults with cancer. Studies were categorized as treatment of established CAT/VTE or postoperative thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery. Outcomes included major bleeding (MB), VTE, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality. Random-effects models generated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsSeventeen studies involving 31,632 patients were included. Apixaban was not associated with a significant increase in major bleeding in postoperative thromboprophylaxis studies (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29-2.12) or treatment studies (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.56-1.55). In treatment studies, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE than LMWH (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75). In postoperative thromboprophylaxis studies, apixaban showed a numerically lower but non-significant risk of incident postoperative VTE (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-1.06). CRNMB was lower with apixaban in postoperative studies (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95), but not in treatment studies.
conclusionsApixaban may be an effective alternative to LMWH for selected patients with established CAT/VTE and was associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE. No clear increase in major bleeding was observed, but this finding should be interpreted cautiously because the certainty of evidence for bleeding outcomes was low. Evidence for postoperative thromboprophylaxis is promising but less definitive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42622790What 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.