Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulant treatment in patients with liver cirrhosis is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical outcomes of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy in cirrhosis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and conference proceedings up to November 7th, 2017, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), or atrial fibrillation (AF). Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to heterogeneity of the included studies. RESULTS: Of the 2927 articles assessed, five retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 239, including 20 patients overlap). All studies had fair methodological quality. Two studies evaluated DOAC treatment only, and three also evaluated vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Recurrent VTE (DOAC n = 12, LMWH/VKA n = 8) or ischemic stroke (DOAC n = 37, LMWH/VKA n = 9) occurred in none of the patients. Progression of VTE was 8% with DOACs (n = 12) and 13% with VKAs and LWWH (n = 8). Recurrent SVT occurred in 0 to 4% with DOACs (n = 31). Progression of SVT was 0 to 5% with DOACs (n = 24) and 0 to 47% with VKAs and LMWH (n = 33). Major bleeding risk ranged from 4 to 15% with DOACs (n = 172) and from 7 to 28% with VKAs and LMWH (n = 67). All-cause mortality risk was 6% with DOACs (n = 36). CONCLUSIONS: There is paucity of data on the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis. This analysis suggests that DOACs may be effective and safe for treatment of VTE, SVT, and AF in these patients.

A clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a development and validation study in two independent prospective cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of cancer, but the risk of developing venous thromboembolism varies greatly among individuals and depends on numerous factors, including type of cancer. We aimed to develop and externally validate a clinical prediction model for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We used data from the prospective Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) cohort (n=1423) to select prognostic variables for inclusion in the model. We then validated the model in the prospective Multinational Cohort Study to Identify Cancer Patients at High Risk of Venous Thromboembolism (MICA) cohort (n=832). We calculated c-indices to show how the predicted incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism at 6 months compared with the cumulative 6-month incidences observed in both cohorts. FINDINGS: Two variables were selected for inclusion in the final clinical prediction model: tumour-site risk category (low or intermediate vs high vs very high) and continuous D-dimer concentrations. The multivariable subdistribution hazard ratios were 1·96 (95% CI 1·41-2·72; p=0·0001) for high or very high versus low or intermediate and 1·32 (95% CI 1·12-1·56; p=0·001) per doubling of D-dimer concentration. The cross-validated c-indices of the final model were 0·66 (95% CI 0·63-0·67) in CATS and 0·68 (0·62-0·74) in MICA. The clinical prediction model was adequately calibrated in both cohorts. INTERPRETATION: An externally validated clinical prediction model incorporating only one clinical factor (tumour-site category) and one biomarker (D-dimer) predicted the risk of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid cancers. This simple model is a considerable improvement on previous models for predicting cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, and could aid physicians in selection of patients who will likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis. FUNDING: Austrian Science Fund, Austrian National Bank Memorial Fund, and participating hospitals.

Safety of anticoagulant treatment in cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of (recurrent) venous thromboembolism. They are also at increased risk of bleeding. This makes treatment of venous thromboembolisms (VTE) in cancer patients challenging. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we will focus on the safety of anticoagulant treatment of VTE in cancer patients. We will discuss the absolute and relative bleeding risks associated with the various types of anticoagulants, specifically focusing on low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs). EXPERT OPINION: Monotherapy with LMWH is recommended for treatment of acute VTE in cancer patients. The bleeding risk associated with LMWH is comparable to VKAs, but LMWH are more effective in preventing recurrent VTE. More evidence on the efficacy and safety of NOACs in cancer patients is needed.

Extended-duration rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients: MAGELLAN study protocol.

Patients with acute medical illnesses are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in these patients but questions remain regarding the optimal duration of therapy. The aim of this study is to determine whether oral rivaroxaban is non-inferior to standard-duration (approximately 10 days) subcutaneous (s.c.) enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, and whether extended-duration (approximately 5 weeks) rivaroxaban is superior to standard-duration enoxaparin. Patients aged 40 years or older and hospitalized for various acute medical illnesses with risk factors for VTE randomly receive either s.c. enoxaparin 40 mg once daily (od) for 10 ± 4 days or oral rivaroxaban 10 mg od for 35 ± 4 days. The primary efficacy outcomes are the composite of asymptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic DVT, symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and VTE-related death up to day 10 + 4 and up to day 35 + 4. The primary safety outcome is the composite of treatment-emergent major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. As of July 2010, 8,101 patients from 52 countries have been randomized. These patients have a broad range of medical conditions: approximately one-third were diagnosed with acute heart failure, just under one-third were diagnosed with acute infectious disease, and just under one-quarter were diagnosed with acute respiratory insufficiency. MAGELLAN will determine the efficacy, safety, and pharmacological profile of oral rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE in a diverse population of medically ill patients and the potential of extended-duration therapy to reduce incidence of VTE.