McMasterLogo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Recurrent VTE in Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.



  • Schrag D
  • Uno H
  • Rosovsky R
  • Rutherford C
  • Sanfilippo K
  • Villano JL, et al.
JAMA. 2023 Jun 13;329(22):1924-1933. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7843. (Original)
PMID: 37266947
Read abstract
Disciplines
  • Oncology - Genitourinary
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 7/7
  • Oncology - Hematology
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7
  • Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Internal Medicine
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Oncology - Gynecology
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Hemostasis and Thrombosis
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Oncology - Breast
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Oncology - Gastrointestinal
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Oncology - General
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Oncology - Lung
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: In patients with cancer who have venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended to prevent recurrent VTE. The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate DOACs, compared with LMWH, for preventing recurrent VTE and for rates of bleeding in patients with cancer following an initial VTE event.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 67 oncology practices in the US that enrolled 671 patients with cancer (any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia) who had a new clinical or radiological diagnosis of VTE. Enrollment occurred from December 2016 to April 2020. Final follow-up was in November 2020.

INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a DOAC (n = 335) or LMWH (n = 336) and were followed up for 6 months or until death. Physicians and patients selected any DOAC or any LMWH (or fondaparinux) and physicians selected drug doses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the recurrent VTE rate at 6 months. Noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC vs LMWH was defined by the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference of a DOAC relative to LMWH of less than 3% in the randomized cohort that received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. The 6 prespecified secondary outcomes included major bleeding, which was assessed using a 2.5% noninferiority margin.

RESULTS: Between December 2016 and April 2020, 671 participants were randomized and 638 (95%) completed the trial (median age, 64 years; 353 women [55%]). Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose. Among those randomized to LMWH, 308 received at least 1 dose. Rates of recurrent VTE were 6.1% in the DOAC group and 8.8% in the LMWH group (difference, -2.7%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 0.7%) consistent with the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Of 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, none were statistically significant. Major bleeding occurred in 5.2% of participants in the DOAC group and 5.6% in the LMWH group (difference, -0.4%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 2.5%) and did not meet the noninferiority criterion. Severe adverse events occurred in 33.8% of participants in the DOAC group and 35.1% in the LMWH group. The most common serious adverse events were anemia and death.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE over 6-month follow-up. These findings support use of a DOAC to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744092.


Clinical Comments

Hemostasis and Thrombosis

The benefit of this study is that it is pragmatic and more accurately mimics typical clinical practice than a blinded single-drug RCT. The findings are reassuring but not surprising.

Internal Medicine

As a hospitalist, this article provides further support for treating malignancy-related VTE with DOACs. The findings from this pragmatic non-blinded trial are largely in line with prior evidence, and most of the patients in the DOAC arm were treated with apixaban. As apixaban has previously been shown to be noninferior to LMWH (dalteparin) in a similar population, the results here are not surprising but provide further support for using DOACs in malignancy-related VTE.

Oncology - Breast

Very interesting and pragmatic trial that reinforces the security and safety of direct oral anticoagulant agents vs LMWH. Nonetheless, most patients were on apixaban or rivaroxaban so generalising these results to the other agents (dabigatran or edoxaban) does not seem feasible.

Oncology - Gastrointestinal

Another randomised trial of DOACs compared with LMWHs confirming non-inferiority findings of other trials in a cancer population including CARAVAGGIO, SELECT-D, Hokusai VTE Cancer Trial and ADAM VTE.

Oncology - General

Marginal difference especially given orally or IM.

Oncology - Genitourinary

This is a pragmatic study that answers (well) several questions: 1. are DOACs used in a general practice environment noninferior to LMWH/fondaparinux in preventing VTE in patients with cancer? Yes, no matter which drug was preferred; 2. is this approach safe in patients with low platelets (as low as 50,000/mm3)? Yes, these types of patients were allowed; 3. is this approach feasible in patients with low GFR (down to 15mL/min)? Yes. This question remains: Is it ok to switch to lower intensity anticoagulation with DOACs beyond the 6-month mark? This is the best article in the field that supports using DOACs in this population.

Oncology - Gynecology

Confirms that what most of us have been doing is now validated as non-inferior.

Oncology - Gynecology

This is good news for our cancer patients w/DVT. Until now, they have had to use LMWH products as a s.c. injection, which is prone to cause hematomas at the injection sites.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register