Safety profile of rivaroxaban in first-time users treated for venous thromboembolism in four European countries.

BACKGROUND: The European rivaroxaban post-authorization safety study evaluated bleeding risk among patients initiated on rivaroxaban or vitamin K antagonists for the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Cohorts were created using electronic healthcare databases from the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. Patients with a first prescription of rivaroxaban or vitamin K antagonist during the period from December 2011 (in the UK, January 2012) to December 2017 (in Germany, December 2016) for venous thromboembolism indication, with no record of atrial fibrillation or recent cancer history, were observed until the occurrence of each safety outcome (hospitalization for intracranial, gastrointestinal, urogenital or other bleeding), death or study end (December 2018; in Germany, December 2017). Crude incidence rates of each outcome per 100 person-years were computed. RESULTS: Overall, 44 737 rivaroxaban and 45 842 vitamin K antagonist patients were enrolled, mean age, 59.9-63.8 years. Incidence rates were similar between rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonist users with some exceptions, including higher incidence rates for gastrointestinal bleeding in rivaroxaban users than in vitamin K antagonist users. Among rivaroxaban users, mortality and bleeding risk generally increased with age, renal impairment and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further data from routine clinical practice that broadly support safety profile of rivaroxaban for VTE indication and complement findings from previous randomized clinical trials.

Half-dose direct oral anticoagulation versus warfarin for atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Optimal anticoagulation strategies have not been defined for patients with atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery. METHODS: From a total cohort of 228 patients with pre-existing or new onset atrial fibrillation following coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery, we compared in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in 119 patients treated with low-dose aspirin and a half-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus 109 treated with low-dose aspirin and warfarin. RESULTS: DOAC patients were older (73.1±7.0 vs. 68.7±11.4 years, P<0.001) and had a lower incidence of preoperative atrial fibrillation (37 [31.1%] vs. 69 [63.3%], P<0.001). Otherwise, the two cohorts were well matched for baseline demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, prior cardiac history and STS Risk Score. In comparison to Warfarin patients, DOAC patients had a shorter length of post-surgical stay (6 [5-8] vs. 7 [5-10] days, P=0.037). The two cohorts, however, had a similar incidence of stroke, transient ischemic attack, reoperation for bleeding and postoperative blood bank product usage. Follow-up 30-day outcomes did not differ between the two groups with respect to mortality (0 [0.0%] vs. 0 [0.0%], P=1.000) and hospital readmission (16 [13.4%] vs. 14 [12.8%], P=0.893), although two DOAC patients required drainage of sanguineous pericardial effusions. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to warfarin, half-dose DOAC anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery is associated with a shorter postoperative length of stay, without a significant increase in stroke/transient ischemic attack, reoperation for bleeding or postoperative blood product transfusion. Follow-up echocardiography in anticoagulated patients is recommended to rule out significant sanguineous pericardial effusions in the early postoperative period following hospital discharge.

Appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulant prescribing in older subjects with atrial fibrillation discharged from acute medical wards.

AIMS: Knowledge on the prescriptive practice of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in older subjects with atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalized in acute medical wards is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and appropriateness of DOAC prescriptions in hospitalized older subjects with AF, discharged from acute medical wards. METHODS: We analysed a cohort of 609 subjects with AF, aged ≥65 years (mean age 85 years) enrolled from 39 geriatric and nephrology wards in Italy. DOAC prescriptive appropriateness was evaluated according to the summary of product characteristics (smPC), 2019 Beers and STOPP criteria, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 33% of patients with AF were prescribed with DOAC, 26% with vitamin-K antagonist, while 41% did not receive any anticoagulant. Among subjects on DOAC therapy, 31% presented a violation of the smPC criteria (mainly underdosage-17%), while 48% and 18% presented a Beers/STOPP inappropriate prescription, or a DDI, respectively. Older age, lower body mass index (BMI), cancer and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were independently associated with DOAC underdosage or missed prescription (age: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00-1.12 for underdosage; eGFR: aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07 for underdosage; BMI: aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99 for missed prescription; cancer: aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.19-3.13 for missed prescription). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a suboptimal DOAC prescriptive practice in older in-patients, with frequent missed prescription and DOAC underdosage. Contrary to current recommendations, physicians appear overly concerned by bleeding risk in real-life older and frailer subjects. Strategies should be developed to promote appropriate DOAC prescription in the hospital setting.

Management of patients with proximal femur fractures under DOACs.

PURPOSE: In the past, preinjury direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) intake has led to delays in time to surgery (TTS) in patients with proximal femur fractures and delays in surgery have been associated with impaired outcomes. Although healthcare institutions/federal committees have set rules for treatment within 24 h of injury, comprehensive guidelines for the perioperative management of these patients, in particular when on preinjury DOACs, are still lacking. This contribution aims to summarize the current evidence on the safe time window for surgery in patients with proximal femur fractures on preinjury DOACs and to outline therapeutic options if emergency DOAC reversal becomes necessary. METHODS: Narrative review based upon selective review of the pertinent literature. RESULTS: For the majority of patients with proximal femur fractures and on preinjury DOACs, early surgery appears safe as soon as medical clearance has been obtained. There may be an increase in the need for blood products but with data not yet conclusive. Work-up including assessment of remaining anticoagulant activity and potential reversal should be restricted to patients at risk for bleeding complications, in particular in the presence of renal/hepatic impairment. Methodology for rapid assessment of DOACs including quantitative/qualitative concentration levels is work in progress. In the case of bleeding, rapidly acting reversal agents are available. CONCLUSION: Preinjury DOAC use should not routinely delay surgery in patients with proximal femur fractures.

Andexanet Alfa: What We Have Learned from Clinical Trials and Real-World Data.

Andexanet alfa is a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors with immediate reversal of their anticoagulant effect. Andexanet alfa is currently approved for use in patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban who have life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding. New data from both controlled clinical trials and real-world experience are continuously being published, providing greater insight into the clinical characteristics of the drug, such as efficacy and safety. It is worth considering that andexanet alfa could be of benefit in a variety of different clinical scenarios where patients receiving treatment with apixaban and rivaroxaban (and endoxaban) have life-threatening conditions. These different clinical scenarios, which range from pre-treatment of urgent surgery, especially neurosurgical interventions, and concomitant use of andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrate to onset of bleeding more than 6 h prior to admission, should be clarified as well as the issue of "low/high" dose of andexanet alfa and the need for baseline anti-Xa inhibitor levels measured by point-of-care testing. Finally, management of patients at high risk of thrombosis or recent arterial/venous thrombotic events needs to be further explored. In this current opinion, we address these urgent questions in the light of recent literature and clinical trial data.

Transition of management strategies and long-term outcomes in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism from the warfarin era to the direct oral anticoagulant era.

BACKGROUND: There have been still limited data on the transition of management strategies and clinical outcomes after introduction of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Using the 2 series of multicenter COMMAND VTE registries in Japan enrolling consecutive patients with acute symptomatic VTE, we compared 695 patients with cancer-associated VTE in the Registry-1 of the warfarin era and 1507 patients in the Registry-2 of the DOAC era. RESULTS: Regarding oral anticoagulation therapy, 576 patients (82.9 %) in the Registry-1 received warfarin, whereas 1119 patients (79.6 %) in the Registry-2 received DOACs. The cumulative 3-year incidence of discontinuation of anticoagulation was not significantly different between the 2 registries (56.7 % vs. 62.7 %, P = 0.11). The cumulative 5-year incidence of recurrent VTE was significantly lower in the Registry-2 than in the Registry-1 (17.7 % vs. 10.1 %, P < 0.001). The cumulative 5-year incidence of major bleeding was significantly lower in the Registry-2 than in the Registry-1 (26.6 % vs. 20.4 %, P = 0.045). The proportion of gastrointestinal bleeding numerically increased from the Registry-1 to the Registry-2 (46.7 % and 49.5 %), whereas that of intracranial bleeding numerically decreased from the Registry-1 to the Registry-2 (17.1 % and 14.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: In the current historical comparison of cancer-associated VTE between the 2 large real-world registries, there was a striking change in the treatment strategies with decreased risks of recurrent VTE and major bleeding in the DOAC era compared with those in the warfarin era, while there seemed to be unmet needs of DOAC-related gastrointestinal bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: UMIN000044816.

Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for direct oral anticoagulant reversal.

BACKGROUND: Optimal reversal agent for direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated major bleeding has not been described. Before the approval of andexanet alfa (AA) in 2018, 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) was recommended by major guidelines. Currently, AA is recommended as the first-line agent by most guidelines. With a paucity of literature comparing the 2 agents, there is clinical value in assessing hemostatic efficacy and safety of the 2 agents. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate hemostatic efficacy and safety of AA and 4F-PCC in all DOAC-associated major bleedings. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective chart review was performed of adult subjects who were admitted for a DOAC-associated major bleeding and received 4F-PCC from February 2018 to May 2019 or AA from May 2019 to September 2021. Some of the exclusion criteria included not receiving a DOAC, receiving multiple reversal agents during the same hospitalization, receiving reversal for any nonmajor bleeding indication, and not receiving the full dose of a reversal agent. The primary outcome was hemostatic efficacy 24 hours after the end of the reversal agent administration. Secondary outcomes included time to administration, hospital mortality, length of stay, need for surgery, and need for additional blood product. Safety outcome was incidence of thrombotic events. RESULTS: There were 99 subjects included in the 4F-PCC group and 84 subjects in the AA group. Hemostatic efficacy was achieved in 69 subjects (69.7%) in the 4F-PCC group and 63 subjects (75%) in the AA group (P = 0.927). In-hospital mortality was seen in 20 subjects (20.2%) in the 4F-PCC group and 10 subjects (11.9%) in the AA group. Thrombotic events were seen in 7 subjects (7.1%) in the 4F-PCC group and 6 subjects (7.1%) in the AA group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, and number of thrombotic events between 4F-PCC and AA.

Management of cancer-associated thromboembolism in vulnerable population.

Although all patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high morbidity and mortality risk, certain groups of patients are particularly vulnerable. This may expose the patient to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrence or bleeding (or both), as the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulant treatment may be modified. Treatment thus needs to be chosen with care. Such vulnerable groups include older patients, patients with renal impairment or thrombocytopenia, and underweight and obese patients. However, these patient groups are poorly represented in clinical trials, limiting the available data, on which treatment decisions can be based. Meta-analysis of data from randomised clinical trials suggests that the relative treatment effect of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (DXIs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with respect to major bleeding could be affected by advanced age. No evidence was obtained for a change in the relative risk-benefit profile of DXIs compared to LMWH in patients with renal impairment or of low body weight. The available, albeit limited, data do not support restricting the use of DXIs in patients with CAT on the basis of renal impairment or low body weight. In older patients, age is not itself a critical factor for choice of treatment, but frailty is such a factor. Patients over 70 years of age with CAT should undergo a systematic frailty evaluation before choosing treatment and modifiable bleeding risk factors should be addressed. In patients with renal impairment, creatine clearance should be assessed and monitored regularly thereafter. In patients with an eGFR<30mL/min/1.72m2, the anticoagulant treatment may need to be adapted. Similarly, platelet count should be assessed prior to treatment and monitored regularly. In patients with grade 3-4, thrombocytopenia (<50,000 platelets/µL) treatment with a LMWH at a reduced dose should be considered. For patients with CAT and low body weight, standard anticoagulant treatment recommendations are appropriate, whereas in obese patients, apixaban may be preferred.

Management of venous thromboembolic disease in patients with malignant brain tumours.

This article addresses the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with malignant brain tumours, including both primary and secondary (metastatic) tumours. The available data on patients on venous thromboembolism recurrence and bleeding risks in patients with brain tumours is limited, since these patients have been excluded from most randomised, interventional, head-to-head, clinical trials comparing low molecular weight heparins to vitamin K antagonists or to direct oral Factor Xa inhibitors. More information is available from retrospective observational studies, which however were generally small, and carried a high risk of confounding. Their findings suggest that direct Factor Xa inhibitor use is associated with lower rates of intracranial haemorrhage compared with low molecular weight heparins. Overall, the safety profile of direct oral Factor Xa inhibitors when used to prevent venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with either primary or secondary brain tumours appears to be favourable. The available data are in favour of using an anticoagulant at a full therapeutic dose in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours experiencing a venous thromboembolism, although they are not yet sufficiently robust to permit recommending a direct Factor Xa inhibitor over low-molecular weight heparin.

Low-molecular-weight heparin is associated with lower venous thromboembolism events than factor Xa inhibitors in patients with severe blunt trauma: a cohort study from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common complication of major trauma. Pharmacological VTE prophylactics are widely used, and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended. Factor Xa inhibitors are increasingly being used for VTE prophylaxis in both medical and surgical patients. Evidence comparing LMWH and factor Xa inhibitors as VTE prophylactics for severe blunt trauma is lacking. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of factor Xa inhibitors and LMHW in VTE prophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with severe blunt trauma who received LMWH or a factor Xa inhibitor for VTE prophylaxis in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2017 and 2019 were included. The comparison was performed after using propensity score matching. The outcomes included mortality and incidence of DVT, PE, post-prophylactics haemorrhage control procedures and length of stay. RESULTS: After 2:1 propensity score matching, 1128 patients ( n =752, LMHW group; n =376, factor Xa inhibitor group) were included in the analysis. Patients in the LMWH group had fewer VTE events than those in the factor Xa inhibitor group (DVT, 3.7% vs. 7.2%, P =0.013; PE, 0.4% vs. 3.2%, P <0.001). VTE risk was higher in the factor Xa group (DVT: odds ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.12-3.44; P =0.018 and PE: odds ratio, 9.65; 95% CI, 2.91-44.12; P =0.001). The mortality rate was higher in the LMWH group; however, there was no significant difference (4.0% vs. 1.9%; P =0.075). The difference in the risk of undergoing haemorrhage control surgery after VTE prophylaxis between both groups was insignificant (0.3% vs. 0.0%; P =0.333). CONCLUSIONS: LMWH was associated with a lower risk of VTE than factor Xa inhibitors in patients with severe blunt trauma. The mortality rate was higher in the LMWH group; however, there was no statistically significant difference observed.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Measures for the Treatment of Adults with Isolated Calf Muscular Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Isolated calf muscular vein thrombosis (ICMVT) can result in pulmonary embolism, but the treatment of ICMVT remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the optimal treatment for the ICMVT by comparing the efficacy and safety of different treatments. METHODS: A network meta-analysis was conducted to search for studies published from database inception to April 30, 2022, that compared the outcomes of 2 or more treatments for ICMVT. The primary outcomes were efficacy (resolution rate) and safety (adverse reactions). Data were extracted following predefined hierarchy and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. We estimated summary odds ratios with 95% credibility intervals using Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were enrolled in the study. In terms of efficacy and safety, urokinase thrombolysis combined with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was most effective but had the lowest safety, while physical therapy was safest but had the lowest efficacy. More important, direct oral factor Xa inhibitors were most likely to be second most effective and safe compared with other treatments. For the duration of treatment, anticoagulant therapy for at least 3 months could effectively increase the resolution rate of ICMVT. CONCLUSIONS: Considering both efficacy and safety, taking direct oral factor Xa inhibitors for at least 3 months was the optimal treatment compared to LMWH, urokinase thrombolysis combined LMWH, physical therapy and warfarin for patients with ICMVT.

Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A focus on special populations.

Current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of both low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (apixapan, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) as first-line options for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. However, most of these guidelines refer to the general cancer patient population and provide limited guidance for specific subgroups of patients at particularly high risk of bleeding, such as those with gastrointestinal cancers, primary or metastatic brain tumors, thrombocytopenia, or renal impairment. In these complex populations, the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses unique challenges and requires a nuanced approach based on the primum non nocere principle. This comprehensive review critically examines the relevant literature and discusses the therapeutic options currently available for the management of CAT in these special situations.

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

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.

Direct oral anticoagulants and their antagonists in perioperative practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review management strategies for patients receiving nonvitamin K direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). RECENT FINDINGS: Updated clinical trials and guidelines continue to further define optimal management for patients on DOACs requiring emergency surgery or procedural interventions. In addition, specific bleeding management strategies that include either specific or nonspecific antagonists are becoming available. SUMMARY: Most currently used DOACs are factor Xa inhibitors and should be stopped for 24-48 h for elective surgical procedures in patients at risk for bleeding and potentially longer for dabigatran, depending on renal function. Idarucizumab, a specific dabigatran reversal agent, has been studied in surgical patients and is currently approved for use. For Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, although andexanet alfa is approved for medical bleeds, it is not approved for surgical patients, has a short duration of effect, and costs $12 500 per gram. When managing DOAC-treated patients requiring emergency surgery, when stopping the DOAC and delaying surgery is not feasible, standard approaches should include hemostatic, hemodynamic, and transfusional support. Due to higher risk associated with therapeutic agents used to manage DOAC-related bleeding, increasing data supports the potential off-label use of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC).

Oral factor Xa inhibitor underutilization following lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) (ie, endovascular revascularization) for symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease remain at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. High-quality evidence demonstrates the addition of a low-dose oral factor Xa inhibitor to single antiplatelet therapy, termed dual pathway inhibition (DPI), reduces the incidence of major adverse events in this population. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI, identify patient and procedural characteristics associated with factor Xa inhibitor use, and describe temporal trends in antithrombic therapy post-PVI before vs after VOYAGER PAD. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2018 through June 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation following PVI, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 91,569 PVI procedures were deemed potentially eligible for factor Xa inhibitor initiation and were included in this analysis. Overall rates of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI increased from 3.5% in 2018 to 9.1% in 2022 (P < .0001). The strongest positive predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI were non-elective (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 4.06-4.68; P < .0001) or emergent (OR, 8.20; 95% CI, 7.14-9.41; P < .0001) status. The strongest negative predictor was postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy prescription (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.23; P < .0001), highlighting significant hesitation about use of DPI after PVI and limited translation of VOYAGER PAD findings into clinical practice. Antiplatelet medications remain the most common antithrombotic regimen after PVI, with almost 70% of subjects discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy and approximately 20% discharged on single antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI has increased in recent years, although the absolute rate remains low, and most eligible patients are not prescribed this treatment.

Updated Renal Dosage Recommendations for Rivaroxaban in Patients Experiencing or at Risk of Thromboembolic Disease.

Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban has been shown to provide similar efficacy and a lower risk of bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment and prevention of VTE. Rivaroxaban has been studied in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment, and this review summarizes current knowledge supporting its use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] of 15 to < 30 mL/min) for the prevention, treatment, or prophylaxis of VTE. Clinical pharmacology studies have demonstrated an increase in rivaroxaban systemic exposure, factor Xa inhibition, and prothrombin time with decreasing renal function. These changes reach a plateau with comparable increases in exposure among individuals with moderate or severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease. The clinical development program for the treatment and prevention of VTE as well as prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopedic surgery excluded patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min; however, a limited number of patients with severe renal impairment were enrolled. Efficacy outcomes in these patients with severe renal impairment were not meaningfully different from those of patients with higher levels of renal function. There was also no increase in the incidence of major bleeding with rivaroxaban in patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min. Taken together, these pharmacological and clinical data suggest that in patients with severe renal impairment, the approved dosages of rivaroxaban can be used in the treatment and prevention of VTE and for prophylaxis of DVT after hip or knee replacement surgery.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

[Factor Xa inhibitors in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients]. / Faktor Xa-hemmere til forebygging og behandling av venøs tromboembolisme ved kreft.

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of cancer. The prevalence varies according to cancer type and increases proportionally with the stage of cancer. In the past 15-20 years, low molecular weight heparin has been recommended as the first-line treatment. New international guidelines now allow for use of direct factor Xa inhibitors both as prophylaxis and treatment for venous thromboembolism. Prophylaxis should as a general rule only be initiated in patients with moderate to high risk. Bleeding risk assessment is important before starting anticoagulation. Both thrombosis and bleeding risk can change and should therefore be assessed on an ongoing basis. In this clinical review, use of anticoagulation therapy in cancer patients is discussed with particular emphasis on the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors.