Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban versus Dalteparin as a Treatment for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dalteparin and apixaban, have demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, more comparative research of these drugs is still needed. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of apixaban compared to dalteparin in reducing recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding associated with cancer. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials databases up to 5 January 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing apixaban versus dalteparin as treatment for cancer-associated VTE. Five studies were included. Effects according to meta-analyses were reported as relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: It was found that 33 of 734 (4.5%) patients treated with apixaban and 56 of 767 (7.3%) with dalteparin had recurrent VTE as the efficacy outcome (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15–1.58, I2 38%). Major bleeding occurred in 25 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (3.4%) and 27 of 767 with dalteparin (3.5%) (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31–5.27, I2 59%). Likewise, clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 64 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (8.7%) and 46 of 767 (5.9%) with dalteparin (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05–2.19, I2 0%). Conclusions: Apixaban showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE than dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE, but without statistical significance. No statistical significance was observed in clinically relevant major or non-major bleeding.

Correction: Arce-Huamani et al. Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban versus Dalteparin as a Treatment for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina 2023, 59, 1867

“…There was an error in the original publication [1]. No statistical significance was observed in clinically relevant major or non-major bleeding, and similarly, in the evaluation of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding, there were no statistical differences between the two drugs.…”