Direct versus conventional anticoagulants for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis: a pooled and interaction analysis between observational studies and randomized clinical trials
Author(s) -
ZhiChun Gu,
YiDan Yan,
Sheng-Yan Yang,
Long Shen,
Lingcong Kong,
Chi Zhang,
Anhua Wei,
Zheng Li,
Xinhua Wang,
HouWen Lin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
annals of translational medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2305-5847
pISSN - 2305-5839
DOI - 10.21037/atm.2019.12.152
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , observational study , relative risk , meta analysis , warfarin , cochrane library , thrombosis , confidence interval , atrial fibrillation
Background: There are emerging observational studies (OSs) to assess real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). We conducted a pooled and interaction analysis to compare the treatment effect estimates of DOACs between OSs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: We systematically searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for OSs and RCTs that reported recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and/or major bleeding events in CAT patients receiving DOACs and conventional anticoagulants [warfarin or low molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs)]. Relative risks (RRs) for OSs and RCTs were calculated using random-effects models separately, and interaction analyses were afterward applied to assess the comparability between OSs and RCTs.
Results: Baseline characteristic was comparable between identified 10 OSs (35,142 patients) and 8 RCTs (2,602 patients). Overall, no significant difference of treatment effect estimates between OSs and RCTs was detected (P interaction : 0.42 for recurrent VTE; P interaction : 0.38 for major bleeding). DOACs significantly decreased the risk of recurrent VTE compared with conventional anticoagulants in CAT patients (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.86, I 2 : 0% for OSs; RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49–0.86; I 2 : 0% for RCTs), without increasing major bleeding risk (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76–1.07, I 2 : 24.0% for OSs; RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.72–1.88, I 2 : 26.2% for RCTs). Whereas, increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) was found with DOACs versus conventional anticoagulants in CAT patients (RR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.35–5.68, I 2 : 0% for RCTs). Analyses of subgroups, based on comparators and follow-up duration, did not significantly affect results.
Conclusions: In this study, effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus conventional anticoagulants in CAT from OSs are in agreement with those from RCTs, confirming a low risk of recurrent VTE and similar risk of major bleeding in CAT patients receiving DOACs.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom