Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and other anticoagulants for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer. Search methods We conducted a literature search including a comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long‐term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs, VKAs, or other anticoagulants in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE. Data collection and analysis We extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all‐cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health‐related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook [GRADE handbook]). Main results Of 3583 citations,19 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Low molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonistsEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta‐analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow‐up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate‐certainty evidence). Meta‐analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate‐certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low‐certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta‐analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate‐certainty evidence). Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonistsFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta‐analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low‐certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low‐certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low‐certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low‐certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis. Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparinsTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow‐up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low‐certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow‐up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low‐certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow‐up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low‐certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow‐up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low‐certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis. Idraparinux versus vitamin K antagonistsOne RCT with 284 participants compared once‐weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate‐certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low‐certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions For the long‐term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long‐term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies. Editorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".