Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Patients with active cancer are at an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events. Historically, in patients with cancer, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in large randomized clinical trials of patients with VTE and AF, respectively, thus providing an attractive oral dosing option that does not require routine laboratory monitoring. In this review, we summarize available clinical trial data and guideline recommendations, and outline a practical approach to anticoagulation management of VTE and AF in cancer.     

Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Liver Disease

Patients with liver disease are at increased risks of both thrombotic and bleeding complications. Many have atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) necessitating oral anticoagulant agents (OACs). Recent evidence has contradicted the assumption that patients with liver disease are “auto-anticoagulated” and thus protected from thrombotic events. Warfarin and non–vitamin K–antagonist OACs have been shown to reduce thrombotic events safely in patients with either AF or VTE. However, patients with liver disease have largely been excluded from trials of OACs. Because all currently approved OACs undergo metabolism in the liver, hepatic dysfunction may cause increased bleeding. Thus, the optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with AF or VTE who have liver disease remains unclear. This review discusses pharmacokinetic and clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of OACs in patients with liver disease and provides a practical, clinically oriented approach to the management of OAC therapy in this population.     

Influence of Renal Function on the Pharmacokinetics,Pharmacodynamics, Efficacy,and Safety of Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants

With the growing integration of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) into clinical practice, questions have arisen regarding their use in special populations, including groups that may have been underrepresented in clinical trials. Patients with renal impairment, particularly in the lower echelons of renal function, are one such group. In an effort to elucidate the current evidence regarding the use of NOACs in patients with renal impairment, a systematic assessment of the literature was performed. The MEDLINE database was interrogated for studies and analyses evaluating the influence of renal function on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety of NOACs published from January 1, 2000, through August 2, 2017. The 82 relevant publications retrieved highlight the diversity in the NOAC class regarding the impact of renal function on drug clearance, drug exposures, and clinical trial outcomes. In several large clinical trials, subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences when patients were stratified by creatinine clearance as a measure of renal function. Efficacy findings, in particular, were largely aligned with the overall population in the included studies. However, relative risks of bleeding were shown to vary, sometimes driven by changes in bleeding event rates in the comparator arm (eg, warfarin, enoxaparin). With few exceptions, minimal influence of mild renal impairment was observed on the relative efficacy and safety of NOACs. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the presence of renal impairment merits careful consideration of anticoagulant choice but should not deter physicians from appropriate use of NOACs.     

Direct Oral Anticoagulants: New Drugs and New Concepts

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are approved for multiple thromboembolic disorders and provide advantages over existing agents. As with all anticoagulants, management protocols for the eventuality of bleeding are important. Randomized phase III studies generally show that DOACs have a similar risk of clinically relevant bleeding compared with standard anticoagulants, with reductions in major bleeding in some cases. This may be particularly important in patients with atrial fibrillation, for whom the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was approximately halved with DOACs compared with warfarin. Conversely, the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding may be increased. Specific patient characteristics, such as renal impairment, comedications, and particular aspects of each drug, including the proportion eliminated by the kidneys, must be taken into account when assessing the risk of bleeding. Although routine coagulation monitoring of DOACs is not required, it may be useful under some circumstances. Of the traditional clotting assays, a sensitive and calibrated prothrombin time may be useful for detecting the presence or absence of clinically relevant factor Xa inhibitor concentrations (rivaroxaban or apixaban), but specific anti–factor Xa assays can measure drug levels quantitatively. For dabigatran, the results of an activated partial thromboplastin time test may exclude a clinically relevant pharmacodynamic effect, but a calibrated dilute thrombin time assay can be used for quantification of drug levels. In the event of mild or moderate bleeding, normal hemostatic support measures are recommended. For life-threatening bleeding, use of nonspecific prohemostatic agents may be considered, although clinical evidence is scarce. Specific antidotes are in development.     

Comparison of the effect of edoxaban,a direct factor Xa inhibitor,with a direct thrombin inhibitor,melagatran, and heparin on intracerebral hemorrhage induced by collagenase in rats

Introduction

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a major clinical concern with anticoagulation therapy. The effect of a new oral direct FXa inhibitor, edoxaban, was determined in a rat model of ICH and compared with a direct thrombin inhibitor, melagatran, and heparin.

Methods

To induce ICH, 0.1 U collagenase type VII was injected into the striatum of male Wistar rats under anesthesia with thiopental or halothane. Immediately after ICH induction, edoxaban, melagatran, or heparin were infused intravenously. Five hours after ICH induction, the brain was removed and ICH size was measured. To estimate the margin of safety, antithrombotic effects were evaluated in a rat venous thrombosis model.

Results

Edoxaban at 6 mg/kg/h significantly increased ICH volume (1.8-fold) and prolonged prothrombin time (PT) 2.8-fold compared to the vehicle group. No deaths were observed with edoxaban. Melagatran at 1 mg/kg/h increased ICH volume at 1 mg/kg/h (2.8-fold) with 6.1-fold PT prolongation. At 3 mg/kg/h, all rats died due to severe ICH (3.9-fold). Heparin at both 100 and 500 U/kg/h significantly increased ICH. At 500 U/kg/h, 5 out of 8 rats died. The doses required for 50% inhibition of thrombosis of edoxaban, melagatran, and heparin were 0.045 mg/kg/h, 0.14 mg/kg/h, and 55 U/kg/h, respectively. The safety margins between antithrombotic and ICH exacerbation effects of these anticoagulants were 133, 7.1, and 1.8, respectively.

Conclusion

The safety margin of edoxaban was wider than that of melagatran or heparin. These results suggest that edoxaban may be preferable from the perspective of ICH exacerbation risk.     

Tamoxifen induces resistance to activated protein C

Introduction

The estrogen antagonist tamoxifen (TAM) increases the thrombotic risk similar to estrogen containing oral contraceptives (OC). In OC users this risk is attributed to alterations of hemostasis resulting in acquired resistance to activated protein C (APC). TAM-induced APC resistance has not been reported yet.

Materials and Methods

Blood samples were collected prospectively from women with breast cancer before (n = 25) and monthly after start of adjuvant TAM treatment (n = 75). APC resistance was evaluated on basis of the effect of APC on the endogenous thrombin generation potential. To detect increased in vivo APC generation APC plasma levels were measured using a highly sensitive oligonucleotide-based enzyme capture assay. Routine hemostasis parameters were measured additionally.

Results

APC sensitivity decreased by 41% (p = 0.001) compared to baseline after one month of TAM application and remained significantly decreased during the study period. Free protein S increased (p = 0.008) while other analyzed procoagulant factors, inhibitors, and activation markers of coagulation decreased or did not change significantly. In five patients the APC concentration increased to non-physiological levels but an overall significant increase of APC was not observed.

Conclusions

This is the first study showing acquired APC resistance under TAM therapy. Acquired APC resistance might explain the increased thrombotic risk during TAM treatment. Observed changes of hemostasis parameters suggest different determinants of TAM-induced APC resistance than in OC-induced APC resistance. The presence of acquired APC resistance in TAM patients warrants further evaluation if these patients may benefit from antithrombotic prophylaxis in the presence of additional thrombotic risk factors.     

Thromboprophylaxis use and concordance with guidelines among medical and surgical patients in Morocco

Introduction

No data are available on thromboprophylaxis use in Morocco. Our aim was to characterize patients at risk of venous thromboembolism and assess the rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis.

Materials and Methods

This was a national, observational, multicentre survey of venous thromboembolism risk and thromboprophylaxis use in hospitalized patients. Data were collected on a predefined date in three university hospitals in Morocco using a standardized pre-printed form. Thromboembolic risk was assessed according to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) 2008 guidelines. Patients were classified as “thromboprophylaxis indicated” or “thromboprophylaxis not indicated”.

Results

784 patients were analysed: 307 (39.2%) medical and 477 (60.8%) surgical. 421 (53.7%) were female. Medical patients were older than surgical patients (57.6 ± 11.5 vs. 46.2 ± 16.9 years, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to have risk factors for thromboembolism (50.5% vs. 45.7% of patients, p = NS). 57% of patients without contraindications or bleeding risk were at risk of thromboembolism according to ACCP guidelines and thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 42.8% of these patients. In contrast, 7.4% of patients with no thromboembolic risk also received thromboprophylaxis (proportion agreement: 61.0%; Kappa = 0.296). Over half (54.5%) of medical patients at risk of thromboembolism did not receive thromboprophylaxis whereas 6.3% of those with no risk did receive it (proportion agreement: 76.4%; Kappa = 0.433). These figures were 57.9% and 9.2%, respectively, for surgical patients (proportion agreement: 52.7%; Kappa = 0.191). Thromboprophylaxis was given to 19.2% of patients with contraindications or a bleeding risk.

Conclusions

Educational initiatives are imperative to inform doctors about appropriate thromboprophylaxis.     

Indirect treatment comparison of new oral anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism

Background

Numerous new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been compared to a parenteral anticoagulant/oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for this indication.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search through November 2013 for randomized trials that evaluated treatment of acute VTE with a NOAC including rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban. Trials had to report at least one of the following outcomes of interest: mortality, recurrent VTE, recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or major bleeding. Included trials were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of NOACs, reporting relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome.

Results

Six trials (n = 27,069) met inclusion criteria, one each evaluating apixaban and edoxaban and two trials each evaluating rivaroxaban and dabigatran. Risk of bias was low for all trials. NOACS did not differ significantly in the risk of mortality, recurrent VTE, recurrent PE or recurrent DVT. Dabigatran increased major bleeding risk compared to apixaban [RR 2.69 (1.19 to 6.07)] as did edoxaban compared to apixaban [RR 2.74 (1.40 to 5.39)].

Conclusion

Although NOACs do not appear to differ in the efficacy of treating acute VTE, data suggests apixaban to be the safer than some of its competitors.