Skip to main content

Apixaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal
Journal of clinical medicine (Q1)
Published
8 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Sumit Aggarwal, Vikram Singh, Aayushi Bhasin, Sachit Anand, Heena Tabassum
PMID
42513254
DOI
10.3390/jcm15145341

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Hematology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).

Abstract

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly in the context of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy. While apixaban has emerged as a potential alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), uncertainty remains regarding the consistency of its safety profile across different LMWH agents. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Results: Six randomized controlled trials were included. Apixaban was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.96). However, safety outcomes varied depending on the LMWH comparator. Compared with dalteparin, apixaban was associated with a higher risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) (log RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.75), whereas, compared with enoxaparin, it was associated with a lower risk (log RR -0.49; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.02). Conclusions: These findings suggest potential differences in safety profiles across individual LMWH agents. However, given the limited number of included trials and clinical heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted cautiously. Further large-scale studies are required to confirm these observations.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.