Bott‐Kitslaar, Dalene

Background: Active malignancy accounts for 20% of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the community and is the second leading cause of death among cancer patients. Rivaroxaban offers a convenient alternative to conventional anticoagulation for VTE in cancer patients but its efficacy and safety for this group of patients is not well documented. Patients and Methods: All patients with cancer-associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), enrolled into Mayo Rochester Thrombophilia Clinic Direct Oral Anticoagulants Registry between November 1, 2012 and April 30, 2015, were followed prospectively to provide an estimate of the efficacy and safety of this form of therapy. Follow up was obtained in person or by mailed or telephone survey. Results: Out of the 377 patients in the registry, 118 (31%) patients (51% female, mean age 66±10 years) had active malignancy related VTE (62% DVT, 24% PE, and 14% DVT/PE) treated with rivaroxaban. The most common malignancies in this group were: gastrointestinal (20%), lung (13%) and ovary/uterine (13%). Over the follow up period, the VTE recurrence rate was 3.3% (2 DVT and 2 PE; of these, 2 occurred during periprocedural interruptions of anticoagulation); and the major bleeding rate was 3%. There were 26 deaths (22%), none related to VTE or bleeding. The main reasons for choosing rivaroxaban were lower cost compared to LMWH, no need for injections, and the lack of food/drug interactions. Conclusions: These data support that rivaroxaban may provide a safe, effective, and convenient alternative treatment option to standard therapy for cancer related VTE treatment.

Abstract Objectives To investigate the association of extremes in bodyweight (EBW) and outcomes in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non‐major bleeding were compared between patients with bodyweight <60 kg, 60‐120 kg, and >120 kg. Methods Consecutive patients enrolled in the Mayo Clinic VTE Registry (03/28/2013‐8/31/2019) with acute VTE were followed prospectively. Patient status was assessed in person, by mailing a written questionnaire, or by a scripted phone interview. Results Among 2577 patients with weight ranging from 27.0 kg to 263.2 kg, 2123 (82%) had a bodyweight between 60 and 120 kg, 223 (8.7%) had bodyweight < 60 kg, and 230 (8.9%) had bodyweight >120 kg. Patients with bodyweight <60 kg treated with DOACs had higher 3‐ and 6‐month incidence of major bleeding compared to the bodyweight 60‐120kg group (4.4% vs 1.1%, P = .03, and 4.4% vs 1.4%, P = .05, respectively). Patients with bodyweight >120 kg and cancer on rivaroxaban had higher VTE recurrence compared to bodyweight 60‐120kg group ( P = .01). Conclusions Treatment of acute VTE is associated with a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with bodyweight <60 kg. A higher VTE recurrence rate occurred only in cancer patients with bodyweight >120 kg on rivaroxaban.

Abstract Background: Randomized control trials (RCT) have examined the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Increased major bleeding (MB) was seen with edoxaban and increased clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) was seen with rivaroxaban and there has been specific concern about increased risk of bleeding among patients with gastrointestinal malignancies (GIM). Results from RCTs comparing apixaban to dalteparin in CAT are pending. Objective: Using the Mayo Clinic VTE registry, we examined the rates of MB, CRNMB, and overall bleeding (MB + CRNMB) in patients with GIM treated with anticoagulation for CAT. Methods: Consecutive patients treated for CAT were enrolled into Mayo Clinic VTE Registry between March 1, 2013 and July 27, 2018 and were followed prospectively for safety and efficacy. Clinical, demographic and imaging data were collected from each participant at the time of study recruitment. Cancer type, stage, and treatment with chemotherapy were recorded. Major and CRNMB events were evaluated at 3-month intervals. Clinical status was assessed by written questionnaire in subjects unable to return at 3 months. Unreturned questionnaires were followed up with a scripted phone interview. The study was approved by Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Results: In the 535 subjects in the registry with CAT, the mean age (64.6 vs. 62.8 years), mean BMI (28.4 vs. 28.8), and percent female (46.4% vs 40.6%) were numerically similar between DOAC and LMWH treatment groups (Table 1). Metastatic disease was present in 53.6% and 60.2% and chemotherapy was being administered in 66.5% and 71.2% of DOAC and LMWH treated patients, respectively. Thrombocytopenia (<100x109/L) at initiation of anticoagulation was present in 6.8% of DOAC treated and 7.5% of LMWH treated patients. Among all cancer patients, 110 (21%) patients had a GIM, 58 (53%) were treated with LWMH and 52 (47%) were treated with a DOAC (42% rivaroxaban or 58% apixaban). In all CAT, the rate of MB was similar in DOAC versus LMWH treated patients (7.8 vs. 5.4 per 100 person-years; HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.72-3.05; Table 2). The rate of CRNMB however, was significantly increased in the DOAC patients compared to LMWH treated patients (6.18 vs. 0.44 per 100 person-years; HR 14.7, 95% CI 1.92, 112.26). In the sub-group of patients with GIM, the rate of MB was non-significantly higher in the DOAC versus LMWH treated patients (11.1 vs. 3.9 per 100 person-years; HR 2.90, 95% CI 0.57, 14.73). In contrast to the overall CAT group, the rate of CRNMB was similar in the DOAC compared to LMWH treated patients (2.10 vs. 1.92 per 100 person-years; HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.07, 20.21). In GIM patients, apixaban compared to rivaroxaban had a numerically higher, but non-significant, rate of major bleeding (23.98 vs. 3.50 per 100 person-years; HR 4.0, 95% CI 0.54-29.87). In the overall group of CAT, the risk of major bleeding was similar between apixaban and rivaroxaban (9.51 vs. 6.77 per 100 person-years). Conclusion: In our registry of subjects with CAT, we identified a significantly increased rate of CRNMB and overall bleeding, but not MB with the use of DOACs. In our data, GIM alone does not appear to account for the increased bleeding risk seen in CAT with DOACs, as we demonstrated no significant increase in major, CRNMB, or overall bleeding compared to LMWH. Direct comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban was limited by sample size and number of events. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract To provide direct comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with acute cancer‐associated venous thromboembolism (Ca‐VTE), consecutive patients treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or enoxaparin at Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (March 1, 2013 to January 31, 2018)) were followed prospectively. The primary effectiveness outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, and the secondary was mortality. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, the secondary clinically relevant safety outcome was non‐major bleeding (CRNMB), and the third a composite of major and CRNMB. There were 750 patients treated for acute Ca‐VTE with apixaban (n = 224), rivaroxaban (n = 163), and enoxaparin (n = 363) within 14 days of diagnosis and for at least 3 months, or until study event. Recurrent VTE was diagnosed in 11 receiving apixaban, 7 receiving rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban hazard ratio (HR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.51‐3.36) and 17 in the enoxaparin receiving group (apixaban vs enoxaparin HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.54, 2.42 and rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.85, 95% Cl: 0.36, 2.06). There were 82 deaths in apixaban, 74 rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban HR 1.67, 95% Cl: 1.20, 2.33) and 171 in enoxaparin group (rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.73, 95% Cl: 0.56, 0.96). Major bleeding occurred in 11 apixaban, 12 rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban HR 0.73, 95% Cl: 0.32, 1.66) and 21 enoxaparin group (apixaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.89, 95% Cl: 0.43, 1.84 and rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 1.23, 95% Cl: 0.61, 2.50). The CRNMB rate was higher in rivaroxaban compared to apixaban ( P = .03) and LMWH ( P = .01) groups. Recurrence of VTE and major bleeding were similar in apixaban, rivaroxaban, and enoxaparin groups. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher CRNMB but lower mortality compared to apixaban and enoxaparin.

AbstractBackgroundLow molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the guideline‐endorsed treatment for cancer‐associated venous thromboembolism (cVTE). Study objectives were to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and enoxaparin in cVTE.MethodsUsing a cohort study design, consecutive patients with cVTE (3/1/2013‐7/31/2016), enrolled in the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic Direct Oral Anticoagulants Registry, were compared to contemporary cancer patients receiving enoxaparin. The cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, major and clinically relevant non‐major bleeding, and survival were assessed at 3 and 12 months.ResultsNinety‐eight patients received rivaroxaban (51% female, mean age 63 ± 12 years) and 168 enoxaparin (34.5% female, mean age 62 ± 15 years). The most common cancers included gastrointestinal/pancreatic, genitourinary and hematologic cancers. More than half of patients had pulmonary emboli at presentation. More than half had metastases, and two‐thirds were receiving chemotherapy. At 3 months, there were no differences in VTE recurrence (rivaroxaban 1.0% vs enoxaparin 4.2%; P = .15), major bleeding (rivaroxaban 5.1% vs enoxaparin 3.6%; P = .55), or all‐cause mortality (rivaroxaban 4.1% vs enoxaparin 8.9%; P = .14). At 12 months, these outcomes did not differ by treatment strategy.ConclusionThe results of this “real‐world” experience with cVTE suggest that rivaroxaban may offer a safe and effective alternative to LMWH.