DOACs vs LMWHs in hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis that informed 2018 ASH guidelines.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a relatively frequent complication in hospitalized patients, especially in those with risk factors. The benefit of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for prevention is controversial. This systematic review was performed as part of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, developed in partnership with McMaster University. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Epistemonikos were used as data sources from date of inception to November 2019. We included randomized trials in patients hospitalized for an acute medical disease, evaluating any DOACs vs other pharmacological prophylaxis, and included 3 trials with low risk of bias. We analyzed the effects of DOACs vs low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) at 2 different time points: at the end of the short-term treatment phase (both drugs given for the same period of time) and at the end of the extended prophylaxis period (extended DOACs vs a shorter course of LMWHs). We observed that the use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in comparison with LMWHs. However, the risk of major bleeding was slightly increased. Additionally, we observed that the benefit of DOACs previously reported was largely based on the reduction of asymptomatic DVT and was not apparent when only symptomatic events were considered. The use of DOACs in hospitalized medical patients slightly increases the risk of major bleeding with no appreciable benefit over LMWHs.

Thrombolytics for venous thromboembolic events: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Thrombolytic therapy might reduce venous thromboembolism-related mortality and morbidity, but it could also increase the risk of major bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep venous thrombosis (DVT). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. Multiple investigators independently screened and collected data. We included 45 studies (4740 participants). Pooled estimates of PE studies indicate probable reduction in mortality with thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94) (moderate certainty) and possible reduction in nonfatal PE recurrence (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.89) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of DVT studies indicate the possible absence of effects on mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.28) (low certainty) and recurrent DVT (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.76) (low certainty), but possible reduction in postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) with thrombolytics (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of the complete body of evidence indicate increases in major bleeding (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46-2.46) (high certainty) and a probable increase in intracranial bleeding (RR, 3.17; 95% CI 1.19-8.41) (moderate certainty) with thrombolytics. Our findings indicate that thrombolytics probably reduce mortality in patients with submassive- or intermediate-risk PE and may reduce PTS in patients with proximal DVT at the expense of a significant increase in major bleeding. Because the balance between benefits and harms is profoundly influenced by the baseline risks of critical outcomes, stakeholders involved in decision making would need to weigh these effects to define which clinical scenarios merit the use of thrombolytics.