Skip to main content

Table 3 Outcomes of meta-analyses of RCTs of DOACs versus LMWH for the treatment of CAT

From: Safe and effective treatment of venous Thromboembolism associated with Cancer: focus on direct Oral Anticoagulants in Asian patients

Meta-analysis

Number of patients analyzed

RR or HR for DOACs versus LMWH (95% CI)

VTE recurrence

Major bleeding

CNRMB

Mulder, et al.a (59)

2607

0.68 (0.39–1.17)

1.36 (0.55–3.35)

1.63 (0.73–3.64)

Giustozzi et al.b (39)

2894

0.62 (0.43–0.91)

1.31 (0.83–2.08)

1.51 (1.09–2.09)

Moik, et al.b (58)

2894

0.62 (0.43–0.91)

1.31 (0.83–2.08)

1.65 (1.19–2.28)

Tao, et al.b (61)

2894

0.62 (0.43–0.91)

1.31, (0.83–2.08)

1.65 (1.19–2.28)

Haykal, et al.b (57)

2907

0.62 (0.44–0.87)

1.33 (0.45–4.22)

1.58 (1.11–2.24)

Saleem, et al.b (60)

2907

0.54 (0.23–1.28)

1.38 (0.45–4.22)

1.77 (0.49–6.40)

  1. Abbreviations: CAT, cancer-associated thrombosis; CI, confidence interval; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; CRNMB, clinically relevant non-major bleeding; HR, hazard ratio; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, risk ratio; VTE, venous thromboembolism
  2. aHokusai VTE cancer, SELECT-D and Caravaggio
  3. bHokusai VTE cancer, SELECT-D, ADAM VTE and Caravaggio