Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.

Rivaroxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in a Broad Cohort of Patients With Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: An Analysis of the OSCAR-US Program.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants as alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in most patients. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus LMWH for a broad CAT cohort. The cohort study used electronic health data from January 2012 to December 2020 to evaluate patients with active cancer experiencing acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH. Propensity score-overlap weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for VTE, bleeding-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality were calculated. In total, 4935 patients were identified (27.9% on rivaroxaban and 72.1% on LMWH). The cancer types included gastrointestinal (29.4%), genitourinary (26.2%), lung (24.0%), breast (19.7%), and hematologic (14.4%). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in recurrent VTE versus LMWH among all patients with cancer (HR = 0.78; 95%CI = 0.61-0.99) at 3 months. No differences in bleeding-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality were observed. Directionally similar results to those at 3 months were observed at 6 months for all outcomes. In conclusion, we observed fewer recurrent VTE cases and no increase in bleeding-related hospitalizations with rivaroxaban versus LMWH at 3 months in this patient cohort with various cancer types.

Rivaroxaban versus Apixaban for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism in Patients at Lower Risk of Bleeding.

This retrospective study, utilizing U.S. electronic health record (EHR) data from January 2013 to December 2020, sought to assess whether rivaroxaban and apixaban had similar effectiveness and safety in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with a cancer type not associated with a high risk of bleeding. We included adults diagnosed with active cancer, excluding esophageal, gastric, unresected colorectal, bladder, noncerebral central nervous system cancers and leukemia, who experienced VTE and received a therapeutic VTE dose of rivaroxaban or apixaban on day 7 post-VTE, and were active in the EHR ≥12 months prior to the VTE. Primary outcome was the composite of recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included recurrent VTE, any bleed resulting in hospitalization, any critical organ bleed, and composites of these outcomes at 3 and 6 months. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 1,344 apixaban and 1,093 rivaroxaban patients. At 3 months, rivaroxaban was found to have similar hazard to apixaban for developing recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.27). No differences were observed between cohorts for this outcome at 6 months (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.71-1.40) or for any other outcome at 3 or 6 months. In conclusion, patients receiving rivaroxaban or apixaban showed similar risks of the composite of recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization in patients with cancer-associated VTE. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05461807. Key Points Rivaroxaban and apixaban have similar effectiveness and safety for treatment of cancer-associated VTE through 6 months.Clinicians should therefore consider patient preference and adherence when choosing the optimal anticoagulant.

Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

Background: Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are alternatives to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in most cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) patients. Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and LMWH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in patients with an active cancer type not associated with a high risk of DOAC bleeding. Methods: An analysis of electronic health records from January 2012 to December 2020 was performed. Patients were adults, had active cancer, experienced an index CAT event, and were treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH. Patients with cancers with an established high risk of bleeding on DOACs were excluded. Baseline covariates were balanced using propensity score-overlap weighting. HRs with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: We identified 3,708 CAT patients treated with rivaroxaban (29.5%) or LMWH (70.5%). The median (25th-75th percentiles) time on anticoagulation was 180 (69-365) and 96 (40-336) days for rivaroxaban and LMWH patients. At 3 months, rivaroxaban was associated with a 31% reduced risk of recurrent VTE vs LMWH (4.2% vs 6.1%; HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51-0.92). No difference in bleeding-related hospitalizations or all-cause mortality was observed (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.55-1.13 and HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85-1.35, respectively). Rivaroxaban reduced the recurrent VTE risk (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97) but not bleeding-related hospitalizations or all-cause mortality at 6 months. At 12 months, no difference was observed between cohorts for any of the previously mentioned outcomes. Conclusions: Among active cancer patients experiencing VTE and not at high risk of bleeding on DOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent VTE versus LMWHs at 3 and 6 months but not 12 months. (Observational Study in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis for Rivaroxaban-United States Cohort [OSCAR-US]; NCT04979780).