Standard- versus extended-duration anticoagulation for primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes two interrelated conditions, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Risk factors include dehydration, prolonged immobilization, acute medical illness, trauma, clotting disorders, previous thrombosis, varicose veins with superficial vein thrombosis, exogenous hormones, malignancy, chemotherapy, infection, inflammation, pregnancy, obesity, smoking, and advancing age. It is estimated that hospitalized patients are 100 times more likely to develop VTE and, compared with surgical patients, medical patients often have more severe forms of VTE. VTE carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic strategies, including mechanical and pharmacological methods, are recommended for patients at risk of VTE. Pharmacological prophylaxis is considered the standard practice for acutely ill medical patients at risk of developing VTE in the absence of contraindications. For hospitalized patients, the risk of VTE extends beyond hospital stay and up to 90 days, with most events occurring within 45 days of discharge. Despite that, it remains unclear whether extended-duration anticoagulation for primary VTE prophylaxis would provide benefits without added risks or harm. To assess the benefits and risks of standard- versus extended-duration anticoagulation for primary VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers up to 27 March 2023. We also searched reference lists of all included studies for additional references and searched the last five years of the American Society of Hematology conference proceedings. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard-duration versus extended-duration anticoagulation for primary VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (adults being treated in a medical inpatient setting). We used the standard methodological procedures set by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion and performed data extraction. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We analyzed outcomes data using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Our outcomes of interest were assessed in the short term (during the treatment period and within 45 days of hospitalization) and long term (assessed beyond 45 days of hospitalization). Primary outcomes were symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were total VTE, a composite of fatal and irreversible vascular events (including myocardial infarction, non-fatal PE, cardiopulmonary death, stroke), fatal bleeding, and VTE-related mortality. A total of seven RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria, comprising 40,846 participants. All studies contributing data to our outcomes were at low risk of bias in all domains. Most studies reported the outcomes in the short term. Extended-duration anticoagulation, compared with standard-duration anticoagulation, for primary VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients reduced the risk of short-term symptomatic VTE (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78; standard-duration 12 per 1000, extended-duration 7 per 1000, 95% CI 6 to 10; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] 204, 95% CI 136 to 409; 4 studies, 24,773 participants; high-certainty evidence). This benefit, however, was offset by an increased risk of short-term major bleeding (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.79; standard-duration 3 per 1000, extended duration 6 per 1000, 95% CI 5 to 8; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] 314, 95% CI 538 to 222; 7 studies, 40,374 participants; high-certainty evidence). Extended-duration anticoagulation, compared with standard-duration, results in little to no difference in short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; standard-duration 34 per 1000, extended-duration 33 per 1000, 95% CI 30 to 37; 5 studies, 38,080 participants; high-certainty evidence), reduced short-term total VTE (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85; standard-duration 37 per 1000, extended duration 28 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 32; NNTB 107, 95% CI 76 to 178; 5 studies, 33,819 participants; high-certainty evidence), and short-term composite of fatal and irreversible vascular events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; standard-duration 41 per 1000, extended-duration 29 per 1000, 95% CI 23 to 37; NNTB 85, 95% CI 50 to 288; 1 study, 7513 participants; high-certainty evidence). Extended-duration anticoagulation may result in little to no difference in short-term fatal bleeding (RR 2.28, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.22; standard-duration 0 per 1000, extended-duration 0 per 1000, 95% CI 0 to 1; 7 studies, 40,374 participants; low-certainty evidence), and likely results in little to no difference in short-term VTE-related mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.05; standard-duration 5 per 1000, extended-duration 4 per 1000 95% CI 3 to 6; 6 studies, 36,170 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the short term, extended- versus standard-duration anticoagulation for primary VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients reduced the risk of symptomatic VTE at the expense of an increased risk of major bleeding. Extended-duration anticoagulation resulted in little to no difference in all-cause mortality. Extended-duration anticoagulation reduced the risk of total VTE and the composite of fatal and irreversible vascular events, but may show little to no difference in fatal bleeding and VTE-related mortality. Further data, with longer follow-up, are needed to determine the optimal agent and duration for primary VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients.

Kolkailah AA ，Abdelghaffar B ，Elshafeey F ，Magdy R ，Kamel M ，Abuelnaga Y ，Nabhan AF ，Piazza G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective primary hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair.

People undergoing major orthopaedic surgery are at increased risk of postoperative thromboembolic events. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in this population. New oral anticoagulants, including direct factor Xa inhibitors, are recommended as alternatives. They may have more advantages than disadvantages compared to LMWHs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, another type of anticoagulant). To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulation with direct factor Xa inhibitors compared with low molecular weight heparins and vitamin K antagonists in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for elective total hip or knee replacement or hip fracture surgery. We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers to 11 November 2023. We conducted reference checks to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of direct factor Xa inhibitors to LMWHs or VKAs in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, and serious hepatic and non-hepatic adverse events. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. We calculated estimates of treatment effects using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 53 RCTs (44,371 participants). Participants' average age was 64 years (range: 18 to 93 years). Only one RCT compared a VKA with direct factor Xa inhibitors. All 53 RCTs compared direct factor Xa inhibitors with LMWHs. Twenty-three studies included participants undergoing total hip replacement; 21 studies, total knee replacement; and three studies included people having hip fracture surgery. The studies' average duration was approximately 42 days (range: two to 720 days). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 28 studies, 29,698 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference to major venous thromboembolic events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; absolute risk difference: 12 fewer major VTE events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 fewer; I2 = 48%; 28 studies, 24,574 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 33 studies, 31,670 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWHs may be between two and five fewer symptomatic VTE episodes per 1000 patients. In the meta-analysis with all studies pooled, direct factor Xa inhibitors appeared to make little or no difference to major bleeding compared to LMWHs, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I2 = 15%; 36 studies, 39,778 participants; very low certainty-evidence). • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given rivaroxaban may have had more major bleeding events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 17,630 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of substituting rivaroxaban for LMWH may be between one and seven more major bleeding events per 1000 patients. • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing direct factor Xa inhibitors other than rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given these other direct factor Xa inhibitors may have had fewer major bleeding events, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; absolute risk difference: 3 fewer major bleeding events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 5 fewer to 0 fewer; I2 = 0%; 19 studies, 22,148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference in serious hepatic adverse events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.93; 2 studies, 3169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported this outcome, with one death in the intervention group due to hepatitis reported in one study, and no events reported in the other study. People given direct factor Xa inhibitors may have a lower risk of serious non-hepatic adverse events than those given LMWHs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 18%; 15 studies, 26,246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWH may be between three and 14 fewer serious non-hepatic adverse events per 1000 patients. Only one study compared a direct factor Xa inhibitor with a VKA. It reported outcome data with imprecise results due to the small number of events. It showed no difference in the effects of the study drugs. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may slightly reduce symptomatic VTE events when compared with LMWH. They may make little or no difference to major VTE events, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the evaluation of major bleeding, the evidence suggests rivaroxaban results in a slight increase in major bleeding events compared to LMWHs. The remaining oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on major bleeding, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce serious non-hepatic adverse events slightly compared to LMWHs. They may have little to no effect on serious hepatic adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Due to the high rates of missing participants and selective outcome reporting, the effect estimates may be biased.

Salazar CA ，Basilio Flores JE ，Malaga G ，Malasquez GN ，Bernardo R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is the third update of the review first published in 2015. To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer- or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 May 2021. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. No new studies were identified for this 2021 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the certainty of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the certainty of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events. When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; low-certainty evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Robertson L ，Broderick C ，Yeoh SE ，Stansby G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network meta-analysis.

Balancing the risk of bleeding and thrombosis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is challenging, and the optimal antithrombotic therapy remains uncertain. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to prevent ischaemic cardiovascular events is promising, but the evidence remains limited. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in addition to background antiplatelet therapy, compared with placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in people without an indication for anticoagulation (i.e. atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and two clinical trial registers in September 2022 with no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of included studies for any additional trials. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NOACs plus antiplatelet therapy versus placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, in people without an indication for anticoagulation after an AMI. Two review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects pairwise analyses using Review Manager Web, and network meta-analysis using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0-to-1 scale. We identified seven eligible RCTs, including an ongoing trial that we could not include in the analysis. Of the six RCTs involving 33,039 participants, three RCTs compared rivaroxaban with placebo, two RCTs compared apixaban with placebo, and one RCT compared dabigatran with placebo. All participants in the six RCTs received concomitant antiplatelet therapy. The available evidence suggests that rivaroxaban compared with placebo reduces the rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty) and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; NNTB 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; moderate certainty). There is probably little or no difference between apixaban and placebo in all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 334; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27; number needed to treat not applicable; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty). Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; NNTB 63; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Dabigatran compared with placebo may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, although the point estimate suggests benefit (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.52; NNTB 143; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Two of the investigated NOACs were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding compared to placebo: apixaban (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.06; NNTH 143; 2 studies, 8544 participants; high certainty) and rivaroxaban (RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 9.77; NNTH 125; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty). There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.22 to 14.12; NNTH 500; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). The results of the network meta-analysis were inconclusive between the different NOACs at all individual doses for all primary outcomes. However, low-certainty evidence suggests that apixaban (combined dose) may be less effective than rivaroxaban and dabigatran for preventing all-cause mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Compared with placebo, rivaroxaban reduces all-cause mortality and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality and may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality. There is probably no meaningful difference in the rate of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between apixaban and placebo. Moreover, we found no meaningful benefit in efficacy outcomes for specific therapy doses of any investigated NOACs following AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Evidence from the included studies suggests that rivaroxaban and apixaban increase the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo. There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding. Network meta-analysis did not show any superiority of one NOAC over another for our prespecified primary outcomes. Although the evidence suggests that NOACs reduce mortality, the effect size or impact is small; moreover, NOACs may increase major bleeding. Head-to-head trials, comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more solid evidence.

Al Said S ，Kaier K ，Sumaya W ，Alsaid D ，Duerschmied D ，Storey RF ，Gibson CM ，Westermann D ，Alabed S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

Robertson L ，Yeoh SE ，Broderick C ，Stansby G ，Agarwal R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》