Key result
Reduced-dose DOACs show no significant difference in recurrent VTE risk compared to full-dose DOACs.
Why the study?
Do reduced-dose DOACs prevent recurrent VTE as effectively as full-dose DOACs in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis requiring extended treatment?
Population
603 patients with cancer-associated thrombosis receiving extended direct oral anticoagulants after at least…
Comparison
Reduced-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs Full-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 335 days
Authors
Loading...
Reduced-dose DOACs may be feasible for extended cancer thrombosis; leaves open efficacy questions pending randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=603)
Yes
Do reduced-dose DOACs prevent recurrent VTE as effectively as full-dose DOACs in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis requiring extended treatment?
Hazard Ratio: 1.4 (95% CI 0.5–3.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.9% vs 2.7%
p-value: p=0.4
Reduced-dose DOACs appear to be a feasible option for extended treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis, with comparable efficacy and safety to full-dose regimens in real-world practice.
Santini et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) (n=603). Reduced-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Full-dose DOACs was evaluated on Recurrent VTE (HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-3.7, p=0.4). Reduced-dose DOACs were associated with a non-significant increase in recurrent VTE compared to full-dose DOACs (3.9% vs 2.7%; HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-3.7; p=0.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: