Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results. RESULTS: The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.

Impact of perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin therapy on clinical events of elderly patients with prior coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the safety and efficacy of discontinuing antiplatelet therapy via LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted for > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This randomized trial was designed to compare the clinical benefits and risks of antiplatelet drug discontinuation via LMWH bridging therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of either dalteparin sodium or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiac or cerebrovascular events. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. RESULTS: Among 2476 randomized patients, the variables (sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, medications, and procedural characteristics) and percutaneous coronary intervention information were not significantly different between the bridging and non-bridging groups. During the follow-up period, the rate of the combined endpoint in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (5.79% vs. 8.42%, p = 0.012). The incidence of myocardial injury in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (3.14% vs. 5.19%, p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis occurred more frequently in the non-bridging group (1.21% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.024), and there was a trend toward a higher rate of pulmonary embolism (0.32% vs. 0.08%, p = 0.177). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of acute myocardial infarction (0.81% vs. 1.38%), cardiac death (0.24% vs. 0.41%), stroke (0.16% vs. 0.24%), or major bleeding (1.22% vs. 1.45%). Multivariable analysis showed that LMWH bridging, creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, preoperative hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of ischemic events. LMWH bridging and a preoperative platelet count of < 70 × 109/L were independent predictors of minor bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the safety and efficacy of perioperative LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An alternative approach might be the use of bridging therapy with half-dose LMWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65203415.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of dalteparin and enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable cause of significant morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients world-wide. In Australia, the low-molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) enoxaparin or dalteparin are usually used as first-line prophylaxis for VTE, though there is uncertainty whether dalteparin has the same effectiveness as enoxaparin in real-world settings. This is relevant because dalteparin is less renally cleared and may be more cost effective than enoxaparin. The aim of this study was to explore VTE event incidence in a general cohort of hospitalized adult inpatients who were prescribed enoxaparin or dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis. A retrospective observational study was conducted at a quaternary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, of patients who had experienced a hospital-acquired VTE from 1 September 2021 to 1 March 2023. Patients were identified from routinely collected data following an in-hospital VTE event, and further data was retrieved retrospectively from the integrated electronic Medical Record (ieMR). Incidence and type of VTE events, LMWH-prescribing patterns, and risk factors were assessed. The incidence of VTE events were similar across the dalteparin and enoxaparin cohorts (42.1 events/10 000 patients vs. 34.4 events/10 000 patients, respectively), although patients prescribed enoxaparin had a higher number of risk factors, particularly obesity and active cancer. Our research indicates comparable incidence of VTE in patients prescribed dalteparin compared with enoxaparin in an Australian hospital general cohort of adult inpatients. Dalteparin may be as effective as enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in a real-world cohort of patients, and as such dalteparin may be considered a suitable alternative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis. Further research including large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these results.

Early Time Courses of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding during Apixaban or Dalteparin Therapy for Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), the rates of recurrence and major bleeding are highest during the first weeks of anticoagulation. The CARAVAGGIO trial demonstrated noninferiority of apixaban to dalteparin for treatment of cancer-associated VTE without an increased risk of major bleeding. We compared the early time course of VTE recurrence and major bleeding events of apixaban compared with dalteparin at 7, 30, and 90 days of treatment in patients with cancer-associated VTE. METHODS: The study design of the CARAVAGGIO trial has been described. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with either apixaban or dalteparin for 6 months. The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of objectively confirmed recurrent VTE. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: In 1,155 patients, recurrent VTE after 7, 30, and 90 days occurred in 6 (1%), 15 (2.6%), and 27 (4.7%) patients in the apixaban arm versus 5 (0.9%), 20 (3.5%), and 36 (6.2%) patients respectively in the dalteparin arm. By day 7, 30, and 90, major bleeding events had occurred in 3 (0.5%), 9 (1.6%), and 16 (2.8%) patients in the apixaban group versus 5 (0.9%), 11 (1.9%), and 17 (2.9%) patients in the dalteparin group. CONCLUSION: The frequencies of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events at 7, 30, and 90 days of apixaban compared with dalteparin were similar in patients with cancer-associated VTE. This supports the use of apixaban for the initiation and early phase of anticoagulant therapy in cancer-associated VTE.

Intravitreal 5-Fluorouracil and Heparin to Prevent Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) is the major cause for surgical failure after primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). So far, no therapy has been proven to prevent PVR. Promising results for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in high-risk eyes have been reported previously. The objective of this trial was to examine the effect of adjuvant intravitreal therapy with 5-FU and LMWH compared with placebo on incidence of PVR in high-risk patients with primary RRD. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter, interventional trial with 1 interim analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with RRD who were considered to be at high risk for PVR were included. Risk of PVR was assessed by noninvasive aqueous flare measurement using laser flare photometry. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to verum (200 mg/ml 5-FU and 5 IU/ml dalteparin) and placebo (balanced salt solution) intravitreally applied during routine pars plana vitrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was the development of PVR grade CP (full-thickness retinal folds or subretinal strands in clock hours located posterior to equator) 1 or higher within 12 weeks after surgery. For grading, an end point committee assessed fundus photographs. Secondary end points included best-corrected visual acuity and redetachment rate. A group sequential design with 1 interim analysis was applied using the O'Brien and Fleming boundaries. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy grade CP incidence was compared using a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by surgeon. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients in 13 German trial sites had been randomized (verum, n = 163; placebo, n = 162). In study eyes, mean laser flare was 31 ± 26 pc/ms. No significant difference was found in PVR rate. Primary analysis in the modified intention-to-treat population results were: verum 28% vs. placebo 23% (including not assessable cases as failures); odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-2.08; P = 0.77. Those in the per-protocol population were: 12% vs. 12%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.47-2.34; P = 0.47. None of the secondary end points showed any significant difference between treatment groups. During the study period, no relevant safety risks were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rate of PVR did not differ between adjuvant therapy with 5-FU and LMWH and placebo treatment in eyes with RRD.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Dalteparin for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To maintain living, interactive evidence (LIvE) on the benefits and harms of different treatment options in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). METHODS: We have used a novel LIvE synthesis framework to maintain this living, interactive systematic review since September 19, 2018. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for CAT are included in this analysis. Details of LIvE synthesis framework are available at the website https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com. RESULTS: The results are constantly updated as new information becomes available (https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com/CAT.html). The living, interactive systematic review currently includes 4 randomized controlled trials (N=2894). Direct comparisons show that DOACs significantly decrease recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events compared with dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86; I2, 25%) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.18; I2, 28%). Mixed treatment comparisons show that apixaban (OR, 0.41; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16 to 0.95) and rivaroxaban (OR, 0.58; 95% CrI, 0.37 to 0.90) significantly decrease VTE recurrent events compared with dalteparin. Edoxaban significantly increases major bleeding compared with dalteparin (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.04 to 3.16), and rivaroxaban significantly increases clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding compared with dalteparin and other DOACs. There are no significant differences between DOACs in terms of VTE recurrences and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: DOACs should be considered a standard of care for the treatment of CAT except in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Current evidence favors the use of apixaban for the treatment of CAT among other DOACs. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dth86).

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications following primary total knee arthroplasty : a Danish nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylactic treatments in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients with a primary TKA performed in Denmark between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 who received thromboprophylactic treatment. We examined the 90-day risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality following surgery. We used a Cox regression model to compute hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, pairwise comparing treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran with rivaroxaban as the reference. The HRs were both computed using a multivariable and a propensity score matched analysis. RESULTS: We identified 27,736 primary TKA patients who received thromboprophylactic treatment (rivaroxaban (n = 18,846); dalteparin (n = 5,767); dabigatran (n = 1,443); tinzaparin (n = 1,372); and enoxaparin (n = 308)). In the adjusted multivariable analysis and compared with rivaroxaban, treatment with dalteparin (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.92)) or dabigatran (HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.70)) was associated with a decreased risk of VTE. No statistically significant differences were observed for major bleeding or all-cause mortality. The propensity score matched analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran was associated with a decreased 90-day risk of VTE following primary TKA surgery compared with treatment with rivaroxaban. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1571-1577.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Dalteparin in Pediatric Patients With Venous Thromboembolism.

This article describes the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of dalteparin in pediatric patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). A prospective multicenter open-label study was conducted in children who required anticoagulation for the treatment of VTE. The study population included children with and without cancer. The goal was to describe the pharmacokinetics of dalteparin using anti-Xa as a surrogate marker and to determine the dose required to achieve therapeutic anti-Xa levels (0.5-1.0 IU/mL). The anti-Xa data were supplemented with 2 published studies and analyzed using population pharmacokinetic approaches. The pharmacokinetics of dalteparin following subcutaneous injection in pediatric patients was described by a 1-compartment model with linear absorption and elimination. Body weight was added as a covariate on both CL/F and Vd/F as a power function with fixed exponents of 0.75 and 1.0, respectively. The estimates of CL/F and Vd/F in the full model were 929 mL/h and 7180 mL, respectively, for a reference female patient aged 12 years with body weight of 43 kg. Body weight-normalized CL/F decreased with age. Cancer status and sex did not have significant effects on CL/F and Vd/F. Simulations were conducted to select starting doses of dalteparin that would rapidly achieve therapeutic anti-Xa levels. These simulations suggested that the recommended starting doses of dalteparin administered subcutaneously in pediatric patients of different age cohort groups for treatment of VTE were 150 IU/kg every 12 hours (1 month to <2 years), 125 IU/kg every 12 hours (≥2 to <8 years), and 100 IU/kg every 12 hours (≥8 to <19 years).

Bleeding with Apixaban and Dalteparin in Patients with Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Results from the Caravaggio Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), but an increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer was reported. The Caravaggio study compared apixaban and dalteparin for the treatment of patients with CAT. Here we describe sites of bleeding, associated cancer sites, clinical presentation, and course of major bleeding in patients included in the Caravaggio study. METHODS: The Caravaggio study was a multinational, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study. Bleeding events and the severity of major bleedings were adjudicated by a committee unaware of treatment allocation using predefined criteria; for the purpose of this analysis, data were analyzed in the safety population. RESULTS: Major bleeding occurred in 22 of 576 patients on apixaban (3.8%) and in 23 of 579 patients on dalteparin (4.0%). The sites of major bleeding and their distribution according to the type of cancer were similar between the two treatment groups. Major bleeding occurred in nine patients with gastrointestinal cancer in each treatment group. The clinical presentation of major bleeding was severe or fatal in 6 patients on apixaban and in 5 patients on dalteparin, while the clinical course was severe in 5 patients on apixaban and in 7 patients on dalteparin. CONCLUSION: Apixaban is a safe alternative to LMWH for the treatment in patients with CAT. No excess in gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in patients who received apixaban, including those with gastrointestinal cancer.

A single-centre, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU for mechanical ventilatory support.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates in COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation are high, with wide variations between countries. Most studies were retrospective, and results may not be generalizable due to differences in demographics, healthcare organization and surge capacity. We present a cohort of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients from a resource-rich, publicly financed healthcare system. METHODS: Prospective study from a tertiary hospital. Consecutive SARS-CoV-2 positive adult patients admitted to the ICU for mechanical ventilation from 10 March 2020 to 04 May 2020 were included. Triage and treatment were protocolized. High-dose dalteparin was adjusted by D-dimer. Demographics, treatments and high-resolution physiological variables were collected. Outcomes were 30-day and hospital mortality. Data are medians (quartiles). RESULTS: Of the 1484 persons in the hospital catchment area testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, 201 (13.5%) were hospitalized. Thirty-eight (19%) patients were mechanically ventilated, of whom five (13%) died. Of the 163 patients treated with supplemental oxygen, eight (5%) died. In ventilated patients (75% males, age 61 (53-70) years), severe, moderate and mild ARDS was present in 25%, 70% and 5%. Tidal volume ≤8 mL/kg ideal bodyweight was achieved in 34 (94%) patients. Proning and neuromuscular blockers were used in 19 (54%) and 20 (61%) patients. Duration of ventilation was 12 days (8-23). D-dimer peaked at 3.8 mg/L (2.1-5.3), and maximum dalteparin dose was 15 000 IU/24 h (10 000-15 000). Despite organizational changes, a high degree of adherence to treatment protocols was achieved. CONCLUSION: In a prospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated in a resource-rich, publicly financed healthcare system, mortality was considerably lower than previously reported in retrospective studies.

FDA approval summary: Dalteparin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in pediatric patients.

On May 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved dalteparin sodium for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) to reduce the risk of recurrence in pediatric patients 1 month of age and older. Approval was primarily based on FDA review of a single-arm trial evaluating dalteparin administered subcutaneous twice daily in 38 pediatric patients with symptomatic VTE. Efficacy was based on the achievement of therapeutic plasma anti-Xa levels. The FDA concluded that dalteparin has efficacy and acceptable safety for pediatric patients.

[Antithrombotic Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism]. / Antithrombotische Therapie bei Lungenembolie.

The present article addresses clinical challenges associated with the choice of the anticoagulant agent, the definition of the duration of anticoagulant treatment and the assessment of the risk-to-benefit ratio of prolonged anticoagulation for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).Anticoagulation is performed with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in hemodynamically unstable patients and with low molecular weight heparins (LWMH) or fondaparinux in normotensive patients. In patients with high or intermediate clinical probability of pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation should be initiated without delay while awaiting the results of diagnostic tests. LMWH and fondaparinux are preferred over UFH in the initial anticoagulation of PE since they are associated with a lower risk of bleeding.All patients with PE require therapeutic anticoagulation for at least three months. The current 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend that all eligible patients should be treated with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in preference to a vitamin K antagonist (VKA). In patients with active cancer, Apixaban, Edoxaban and Rivaroxaban are effective alternatives to treatment with LMWH.The decision on the duration of anticoagulation should consider both, the individual risk of PE recurrence and the individual risk of bleeding. The risk for recurrent PE after discontinuation of treatment is related to the features of the index PE event. While patients with a strong transient risk factor have a low risk of recurrence and anticoagulation can be discontinued after three months, patients with strong persistent risk factor (such as active cancer) have a high risk of recurrence and thus should receive anticoagulant treatment of indefinite duration. Given the favourable safety profile of NOACs (especially if a reduced dosage of Apixaban or Rivaroxaban is initiated after at least six months of therapeutic anticoagulation), extended oral anticoagulation of indefinite duration should be considered for all patients with intermediate risk of recurrence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVES: In the 'Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism' (SELECT-D) trial, rivaroxaban showed relatively low venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence but higher bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer. We aim to calculate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent VTE. SETTING: We built a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon for the Dutch healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 cancer patients with VTE entered the model with baseline characteristics based on the SELECT-D trial. INTERVENTION: Six months of treatment with rivaroxaban (15 mg two times per day for first 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) was compared with 6 months of treatment with dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1 followed by 150 IU/kg daily). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was evaluated in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. A budget impact analysis was performed to calculate the total annual financial consequences for a societal perspective in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the base case and all scenarios, rivaroxaban were cost-saving while also slightly improving the patient's health, resulting in economically dominant ICERs. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 77.8% and 98.7% of the simulations showed rivaroxaban to be cost-saving and more effective for a 5-year and 6-month time horizon, respectively. Rivaroxaban can save up to €11 326 763 (CI €5 164 254 to €17 363 231) in approximately 8000 cancer patients with VTE per year compared with dalteparin based on a 1-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands. The use of rivaroxaban instead of dalteparin can save over €10 million per year, primarily driven by the difference in drug costs.

[Direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis]. / Anticoagulants oraux directs dans le traitement des événements thrombo­emboliques veineux liés au cancer.

The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been largely -implemented in the management of venous thromboembolic disease in non-cancer patients. In cancer-associated thrombosis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and especially dalteparin have long been the reference standard therapy. Following the publication of two randomised trials comparing edoxaban and rivaroxaban to -dalteparin, DOACs now represent an alternative with an interesting efficacy and safety profile. Moreover, they offer the comfort of an oral administration and a lower cost. In patients with gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers however, a higher bleeding risk has been shown with DOACs. LMWHs thus remain the treatment of choice in this group of patients.

L'utilisation des anticoagulants oraux directs (ACOD) pour le traitement de la maladie thromboembolique veineuse (MTEV) chez les patients sans cancer est déjà largement implémentée. En cas de MTEV liée au cancer, les héparines de bas poids moléculaire (HBPM) et en particulier la daltéparine, ont longtemps ­représenté le traitement de référence. Suite à la publication de deux études randomisées récentes comparant l'édoxaban et le rivaroxaban à la daltéparine, les ACOD se sont révélés être une alternative efficace, avec un profil de sécurité satisfaisant, ­offrant par ailleurs le confort d'une administration orale et un coût moindre. Toutefois, en raison d'un risque hémorragique ­accru sous ACOD chez les patients avec un cancer de localisation digestive ou urogénitale, les HBPM restent le traitement de choix dans ce groupe de patients.

Cost effectiveness analysis of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: While trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT), it is unclear if the newer intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov state-transition model over a time horizon of 60 months in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with active malignancy and first acute symptomatic CAT who were eligible to receive either rivaroxaban/edoxaban or dalteparin. We obtained transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs from the literature. We estimated the differential impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Using the base-case analysis over 60 months, DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of dalteparin contributed the most to the incremental cost difference; relative risk of death related to underlying cancer contributed the most of the incremental QALY difference. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis, with a large reduction in cost but small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer's perspective for the treatment of CAT. Professional organizations and healthcare systems may want to consider this analysis in future practice recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis.

Malignancy is a well-established risk factor for venous thromboembolism and while low-molecular-weight heparin therapy has been standard of care for cancer-associated thrombosis for many years, many patients find injection therapy burdensome. The direct oral anticoagulant edoxaban has been shown to be noninferior to dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. In a Markov simulation model, edoxaban with 6-month time horizon and a United States societal perspective with 2017 US dollars, edoxaban was the preferred strategy in the general cancer population (6-month cost $6061 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years) and in a subgroup of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy (6-month cost $7227 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of dalteparin compared to edoxaban was $1,873,535 in the general oncology population and $694,058 in the gastrointestinal malignancy population.

A Retrospective Study on Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Dalteparin for Long-Term Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is low-molecular-weight heparin. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated VTE has increased; however, their efficacy and safety in lung cancer patients remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: We examined the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin for cancer-associated VTE in patients with primary lung cancer. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of 204 patients with primary lung cancer who were prescribed rivaroxaban (n = 131) or dalteparin (n = 73) for VTE was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite event including recurrence and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of recurrence, major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all-cause mortality, and bleeding or pulmonary embolism-related mortality. RESULTS: The composite event occurred in 38 (29.0) and 12 (16.4%) patients in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin (p = 0.045) groups, respectively. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and bleeding risk factors revealed the rivaroxaban group showed a 1.176-fold composite event risk without statistical significance (0.595-2.324, p = 0.641). There was no statistically significant intergroup difference for the incidence of VTE recurrence (5.3% in the rivaroxaban group versus 2.7% in the dalteparin group, p = 0.495) and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (23.7% in the rivaroxaban group versus 13.7% in the dalteparin group, p = 0.089). There was no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.864, 95% CI 0.624-1.196, p = 0.337). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin. Therefore, rivaroxaban may be a valuable treatment option for lung cancer-associated VTE.