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.

A review of latest clinical practice guidelines for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis.

The management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses unique challenges to healthcare professionals. While low-molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have long been the gold standard for both the primary and secondary prevention of CAT, results from large randomized controlled trials assessing the benefit of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in both settings have resulted in some paradigm shifts. Herein, we review and compare recommendations from the latest authoritative clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of CAT and summarize the most recent evidence on available treatment options. A rigorous methodology was used to select high quality CPGs and compare the recommendations across CPGs. Only CPGs focusing on the management of CAT developed by a multidisciplinary international working group and issued or endorsed by national or international scientific societies, or government organizations were eligible for inclusion. The quality of selected CPGs was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Four CPGs met the inclusion criteria, including the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Reduced Rivaroxaban Dose Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: ADRIFT a Randomized Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) exposes to the risk of device thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation who frequently have a contraindication to full anticoagulation. Thereby, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is usually preferred. No randomized study has evaluated nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant after LAAC, and we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of reduced doses of rivaroxaban after LAAC. METHODS: ADRIFT (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Rivaroxaban in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With Left Atrial Appendage Closure) is a multicenter, phase IIb study, which randomized 105 patients after successful LAAC to either rivaroxaban 10 mg (R10, n=37), rivaroxaban 15 mg (R15, n=35), or DAPT with aspirin 75 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg (n=33). The primary end point was thrombin generation (prothrombin fragments 1+2) measured 2 to 4 hours after drug intake, 10 days after treatment initiation. Thrombin-antithrombin complex, D-dimers, rivaroxaban concentrations were also measured at 10 days and 3 months. Clinical end points were evaluated at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The primary end point was reduced with R10 (179 pmol/L [interquartile range (IQR), 129-273], P<0.0001) and R15 (163 pmol/L [IQR, 112-231], P<0.0001) as compared with DAPT (322 pmol/L [IQR, 218-528]). We observed no significant reduction of the primary end point between R10 and R15 while rivaroxaban concentrations increased significantly from 184 ng/mL (IQR, 127-290) with R10 to 274 ng/mL (IQR, 192-377) with R15, P<0.0001. Thrombin-antithrombin complex and D-dimers were numerically lower with both rivaroxaban doses than with DAPT. These findings were all confirmed at 3 months. The clinical end points were not different between groups. A device thrombosis was noted in 2 patients assigned to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombin generation measured after LAAC was lower in patients treated by reduced rivaroxaban doses than DAPT, supporting an alternative to the antithrombotic regimens currently used after LAAC and deserves further evaluation in larger studies. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03273322.