American Society of Hirudotherapy

Current Opinion on the use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients

Research article published in Therapeutics and clinical risk management (2021)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewDrug DevelopmentLee et al. · Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2021

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among acutely ill medical patients. Although VTE prophylaxis is part of post-discharge clinical care in surgical patients, there is controversy regarding its use in acutely ill medical patients and the current guideline statements suggest against its routine use. Recent clinical trials (APEX, MAGELLAN and MARINER) compared the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (including betrixaban and rivaroxaban) with the standard of the care, enoxaparin, to identify the risk-benefit tradeoff. In this review, we summarized the key findings from these trials and substudies and recent updates in society guidelines regarding VTE prevention. In addition, we discussed the potential barriers, cost-effectiveness, and COVID-19 with respect to the implementation of extended-duration or post-discharge usage of direct oral anticoagulants.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview

Summary

Peer-reviewed research on anticoagulant and antithrombotic drug development relevant to leech-derived and synthetic compounds. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This review summarizes the evidence and society-guideline debate around using direct oral anticoagulants (such as betrixaban and rivaroxaban) versus enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical inpatients, drawing on the APEX, MAGELLAN, and MARINER trials and touching on cost-effectiveness and COVID-19 considerations. For ASH it provides context on the modern systemic-anticoagulation landscape against which the localized, secretome-based action of medicinal-leech therapy can be understood. Caveat: this paper contains no leech or hirudotherapy content whatsoever (the slug's 'lee' is the author surname, not 'leech'); it is a narrative review of pharmacologic anticoagulants and is relevant only as general background, not as hirudotherapy evidence.

Citation

Current Opinion on the use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients.

Lee et al. · Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2021

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.