Structured benefit–risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer

Abstract

AbstractPurposeGuidelines recommend low‐molecular‐weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer‐associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit–risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer.MethodsA semi‐quantitative structured benefit–risk assessment was conducted for the label‐extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit–risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results.ResultsThe key benefits were defined as reduced all‐cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non‐fatal PE); the key risks were major and non‐major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all‐cause mortality versus other EEA‐approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non‐major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups.ConclusionsThe assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit–risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA‐approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label‐extension approval.