Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, British Journal of Haematology, 3(203), p. 395-403, 2023

DOI: 10.1111/bjh.19017

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Direct oral anticoagulants versus aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing outpatient therapy: A systematic review and updated meta‐analysis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

SummaryPatients with multiple myeloma (MM) are at an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is further increased for those undergoing anti‐myeloma therapy. Current guidelines suggest low‐dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in this population, but data comparing these two therapies are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare DOACs with aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in individuals undergoing outpatient anti‐myeloma therapy. Studies were selected when comparing DOACs versus aspirin for thrombotic and haemorrhagic outcomes. We included 10 randomised controlled trials and observational studies comprising 1026 patients with MM who received primary thromboprophylaxis with DOACs (n = 337) or aspirin (n = 689). DOAC thromboprophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower incidence of VTE compared with aspirin (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16–0.68; p < 0.001). Major, clinically relevant non‐major and minor bleeding event rates did not differ significantly between groups. Overall, our meta‐analysis suggests that DOACs may be a preferable option to aspirin for the prevention of MM‐related thrombosis. However, these results should be interpreted in the context of heterogeneous baseline population characteristics and potential bias from including observational studies. Further research is needed to evaluate the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy, particularly in high‐risk individuals.