Internal Medicine Department, Hamad General Hospital, 36977Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
473226Qatar University, College of Medicine, QU Health, Doha, Qatar.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2021 Jan-Dec;27:1076029620940046. doi: 10.1177/1076029620940046.
Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) carries significant morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) remains the standard of care, with recent systematic studies suggesting the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Uncertainty, however, remains regarding rivaroxaban efficacy and safety in real-world settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWH. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was the net clinical benefit (NCB), while rates of major bleeding (MB), venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality events were secondary outcomes. Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Rivaroxaban had a better NCB (relative risk [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.75-0.89, Q = 10.51, 0%), less VTE events (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, Q = 6.76, = 0%), and lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.91, Q = 32.8, = 79%) compared to LMWH. Additionally, comparable MB events (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.85-1.33, Q = 16.9, = 11%). However, CRNMB events were higher in the rivaroxaban group (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.46-2.80, Q = 9.9, = 19%). Additional analyses demonstrated consistency of results. Our review encompassing data from randomized and real-world data suggested rivaroxaban superiority compared to LMWH in terms of a better NCB, fewer VTE events, lower all-cause mortality, and comparable MB risk while carrying a higher risk of CRNMB. These findings support the use of rivaroxaban in the treatment of CAT. Additionally, it warrants a sizable randomized controlled study testing the superiority of rivaroxaban versus LMWH formulation and ascertaining bleeding outcomes according to cancer type and site.
癌症相关的血栓形成 (CAT) 会带来严重的发病率和死亡率。低分子量肝素 (LMWH) 仍然是标准的治疗方法,最近的系统研究表明,利伐沙班在 CAT 的治疗中具有疗效和安全性。然而,在真实环境中,利伐沙班的疗效和安全性仍然存在不确定性。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了利伐沙班与 LMWH 的研究。我们检索了 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 EMBASE。主要结局是净临床获益 (NCB),次要结局为大出血 (MB)、静脉血栓栓塞 (VTE)、临床相关非大出血 (CRNMB) 和全因死亡率事件。最终有 17 项研究纳入了最终分析。利伐沙班具有更好的 NCB(相对风险 [RR] = 0.82;95%置信区间 [CI] = 0.75-0.89,Q = 10.51, = 0%)、更少的 VTE 事件(RR = 0.73,95% CI = 0.65-0.82,Q = 6.76, = 0%)和更低的全因死亡率(RR = 0.72,95% CI = 0.57-0.91,Q = 32.8, = 79%),与 LMWH 相比。此外,MB 事件相当(RR = 1.07,95% CI = 0.85-1.33,Q = 16.9, = 11%)。然而,利伐沙班组的 CRNMB 事件更高(RR = 2.02,95% CI = 1.46-2.80,Q = 9.9, = 19%)。进一步的分析显示结果具有一致性。我们的综述包括随机和真实世界数据,表明与 LMWH 相比,利伐沙班在更好的 NCB、更少的 VTE 事件、更低的全因死亡率和相当的 MB 风险方面具有优越性,同时 CRNMB 风险更高。这些发现支持在 CAT 的治疗中使用利伐沙班。此外,还需要一项规模较大的随机对照研究,以测试利伐沙班相对于 LMWH 制剂的优越性,并根据癌症类型和部位确定出血结局。