Search

Thromboembolism is a common and deadly consequence of COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients. Based on clinical evidence pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic and early observational reports, expert consensus and guidance documents have strongly encouraged the use of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. More recently, multiple clinical trials and larger observational studies have provided evidence for tailoring the approach to thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19. This document provides updated guidance for the use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19 from the Anticoagulation Forum, the leading North American organization of anticoagulation providers. We discuss ambulatory, in-hospital, and post-hospital thromboprophylaxis strategies as well as provide guidance for patients with thrombotic conditions who are considering COVID-19 vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection that can, in severe cases, result in cytokine storm, systemic inflammatory response and coagulopathy that is prognostic of poor outcomes. While some, but not all, laboratory findings appear similar to sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), COVID-19- induced coagulopathy (CIC) appears to be more prothrombotic than hemorrhagic. It has been postulated that CIC may be an uncontrolled immunothrombotic response to COVID-19, and there is growing evidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events in these critically ill patients. Clinicians around the globe are challenged with rapidly identifying reasonable diagnostic, monitoring and anticoagulant strategies to safely and effectively manage these patients. Thoughtful use of proven, evidence-based approaches must be carefully balanced with integration of rapidly emerging evidence and growing experience. The goal of this document is to provide guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum, a North American organization of anticoagulation providers, regarding use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19. We discuss in-hospital and post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, treatment of suspected but unconfirmed VTE, laboratory monitoring of COVID-19, associated anticoagulant therapies, and essential elements for optimized transitions of care specific to patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explored associations between INR measures and clinical outcomes in patients with AF using warfarin, and whether INR history predicted future INR measurements. We included patients in ARISTOTLE who were randomized to and received warfarin. Among patients who had events, we included those with ≥ 3 INR values in the 180 days prior to the event, with the most recent ≤ 60 days prior to the event, who were on warfarin at the time of event (n = 545). Non-event patients were included in the control group if they had ≥ 180 days of warfarin exposure with ≥ 3 INR measurements (n = 7259). The median (25th, 75th) number of INR values per patient was 29 (21, 38) over a median follow-up of 1.8 years. A total of 87% had at least one INR value < 1.5; 49% had at least one value > 4.0. The last INRs before events (median 14 [24, 7] days) were < 3.0 for at least 75% of patients with major bleeding and > 2.0 for half of patients with ischemic stroke. Historic time in therapeutic range (TTR) was weakly associated with future TTR (R2 = 0.212). Historic TTR ≥ 80% had limited predictive ability to discriminate future TTR ≥ 80% (C index 0.61). In patients with AF receiving warfarin, most bleeding events may not have been preventable despite careful INR control. Our findings suggest that INRs collected through routine management are not sufficiently predictive to provide reassurance about future time in therapeutic range or to prevent subsequent outcomes, and might be over-interpreted in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are no clear and consistent guidelines on how to utilize DOAC assays, and reports on the use of DOAC levels in clinical practice is limited. The objective of this study was to analyze why DOAC levels are ordered, how the results affect clinical decision-making, and to determine if DOAC assays are utilized appropriately. This was a retrospective chart review study analyzing 150 dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban levels performed at a single institution. The majority of DOAC assays were ordered in situations or special patient populations where confirming absence or detecting presence of drug may be useful. The most common indication for ordering assays was prior to an invasive procedure. Most DOAC levels were timed appropriately but peak levels were most likely to be incorrectly ordered. Clinical decisions following level results depended on indication for ordering and were most commonly used to determine whether or not to proceed with an invasive procedure. The results of our study suggest while DOAC assays are generally ordered for useful indications, there is still a lack of understanding of when levels should be drawn and how to interpret DOAC assay results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To discuss and share knowledge about advances in the care of patients with thrombotic disorders, the Tenth International Symposium of Thrombosis and Anticoagulation was held in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, on September 22 and 23, 2017. This scientific program was developed by clinicians for clinicians and was promoted by two major clinical research institutes—the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute and the Duke Clinical Research Institute of the Duke University School of Medicine. Comprising academic presentations and open discussion, the symposium had as its primary goal to educate, motivate, and inspire internists, cardiologists, hematologists, and other physicians by convening national and international visionaries, thought-leaders, and dedicated clinician-scientists. This paper summarizes the symposium proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To discuss and share knowledge about advances in the care of patients with thrombotic disorders, the Ninth International Symposium of Thrombosis and Anticoagulation was held in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, on October 15, 2016. This scientific program was developed by clinicians for clinicians and was promoted by two major clinical research institutes-the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute and the Duke Clinical Research Institute of the Duke University School of Medicine. Comprising academic presentations and open discussion, the symposium had as its primary goal to educate, motivate, and inspire internists, cardiologists, hematologists, and other physicians by convening national and international visionaries, thought-leaders, and dedicated clinician-scientists. This paper summarizes the symposium proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misdiagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is common and exposes patients to high-risk therapies and potentially serious adverse events. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of collaboration between an inpatient pharmacy-driven anticoagulation management service (AMS) and hospital reference laboratory to reduce inappropriate HIT antibody testing via pharmacist intervention and use of the 4T pre-test probability score. Secondary objectives included clinical outcomes and cost-savings realized through reduced laboratory testing and decreased unnecessary treatment of HIT. This was a single center, pre-post, observational study. The hospital reference laboratory contacted the AMS when they received a blood sample for an enzyme-linked immunosorbent HIT antibody (HIT Ab). Trained pharmacists prospectively scored each HIT Ab ordered by using the 4T score with subsequent communication to physicians recommending for or against processing and reporting of lab results. Utilizing retrospective chart review and a database for all patients with a HIT Ab ordered during the study period, we compared the incidence of HIT Ab testing before and after implementation of the pharmacy-driven 4T score intervention. Our intervention significantly reduced the number of inappropriate HIT Ab tests processed (176 vs. 63, p < 0.0001), with no increase in thrombotic or hemorrhagic events. Overall incidence of suspected and confirmed HIT was <3 and <0.005 %, respectively. Overall cost savings were $75,754 (US) or 62 % per patient exposed to heparin between the pre and post intervention groups. Collaboration between inpatient pharmacy AMS and hospital reference laboratories can result in reduction of misdiagnosis of HIT and significant cost savings with similar safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious medical condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and an incidence that is expected to double in the next forty years. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has catalyzed significant changes in the therapeutic landscape of VTE treatment. As such, it is imperative that clinicians become familiar with and appropriately implement new treatment paradigms. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance for VTE treatment with the DOACs. When possible, guidance statements are supported by existing published evidence and guidelines. In instances where evidence or guidelines are lacking, guidance statements represent the consensus opinion of all authors of this manuscript and are endorsed by the Board of Directors of the Anticoagulation Forum. The authors of this manuscript first developed a list of pivotal practical questions related to real-world clinical scenarios involving the use of DOACs for VTE treatment. We then performed a PubMed search for topics and key words including, but not limited to, apixaban, antidote, bridging, cancer, care transitions, dabigatran, direct oral anticoagulant, deep vein thrombosis, edoxaban, interactions, measurement, perioperative, pregnancy, pulmonary embolism, reversal, rivaroxaban, switching, \thrombophilia, venous thromboembolism, and warfarin to answer these questions. Non- English publications and publications > 10 years old were excluded. In an effort to provide practical information about the use of DOACs for VTE treatment, answers to each question are provided in the form of guidance statements, with the intent of high utility and applicability for frontline clinicians across a multitude of care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. The treatment of VTE is undergoing tremendous changes with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants and clinicians need to understand new treatment paradigms. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. In this chapter, we address the management of patients presenting with venous thrombosis in unusual sites, such as cerebral vein thrombosis, splanchnic vein thrombosis, and retinal vein occlusion. These events are less common than venous thrombosis of the lower limbs or pulmonary embolism, but are often more challenging, both for the severity of clinical presentations and outcomes and for the substantial lack of adequate evidence from clinical trials. Based on the available data, we suggest anticoagulant treatment for all patients with cerebral vein thrombosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis. However, in both groups a non-negligible proportion of patients may present with concomitant bleeding at the time of diagnosis. This should not contraindicate immediate anticoagulation in patients with cerebral vein thrombosis, whereas for patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis anticoagulant treatment should be considered only after the bleeding source has been successfully treated and after a careful assessment of the risk of recurrence. Finally, there is no sufficient evidence to support the routine use of antithrombotic drugs in patients with retinal vein occlusion. Future studies need to assess the safety and efficacy of the direct oral anticoagulants in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a highly prevalent complication of malignancy with emerging changes in incidence, diagnosis and treatment paradigms. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. We address a) the appropriate workup to search for occult malignancy in patients with idiopathic VTE, b) identification of high-risk cancer patients for primary thromboprophylaxis, c) the appropriate immediate and long-term treatment for people with cancer diagnosed with acute thromboembolism, d) the appropriate duration of anticoagulation and e) the appropriate treatment strategy in patients with recurrent VTE on anticoagulation. Areas of controversy and future directions in this field are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cytoreductive therapy, with or without low-dose aspirin, is the mainstay of thrombotic risk reduction in patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET), but the optimal choice of agent remains unclear. The aim of this study was to meta-analyze currently available data comparing anagrelide to hydroxyurea for reduction of rates of thrombosis, bleeding and death among patients with ET. A literature search for randomized, controlled trials comparing anagrelide to hydroxyurea among patients with ET revealed two published studies. Statistical analysis was performed using fixed effects meta-analysis. Rates of thrombosis were similar between patients treated with hydroxyurea vs anagrelide (RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.64-1.16). Rates of major bleeding were lower in patients treated with hydroxyurea (RR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.18-0.75). Rates of progression to acute myeloid leukemia were not statistically different (RR 1.50, 95 % CI 0.43-5.29). The composite of thrombosis, major bleeding and death favored hydroxyurea (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.63-0.97). In conclusion, our analysis supports use of hydroxyurea as a first-line cytoreductive agent for patients with ET, based largely on decreased rates of major bleeding. Anagrelide appears to be equally effective for protection against thrombotic events and may be an appropriate alternative for patients who are intolerant of hydroxyurea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with mechanical heart valves (MHV) require temporary interruption of warfarin when undergoing invasive procedures. Current guidelines addressing this subject are discordant because there is no high quality evidence to support any single management strategy. We tested the hypothesis that there is significant practice variation amongst clinicians caring for patients with MHV who require temporary cessation of their warfarin therapy. Methods: A survey describing 4 hypothetical patients with mechanical heart valves was distributed to all clinicians attending an anticoagulation specialty meeting. For each scenario, the attendee was given several choices for preoperative and postoperative anticoagulation management. Information about each respondent’s profession, specialty and the frequency with which they make perioperative anticoagulation recommendations was also collected. Results: Three hundred twenty-four of 650 surveys were returned. In each of the case scenarios, a majority of respondents selected subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UH) as the preferred pre- and postoperative anticoagulant. Significant variation in practice was noted: for none of the questions was a single strategy selected by greater than 80% of respondents. Conclusion: Expert clinicians differ in their perioperative management strategies for patients with MHV who require interruption of warfarin. Although subcutaneous LMWH/UH was the treatment of choice in all scenarios, the lack of consensus found in our survey highlights the need for randomized controlled clinical trials of peri-procedural anticoagulant therapy. This survey of anticoagulation experts reveals that there is significant practice variation in scenarios where temporary interruption of warfarin is necessary in patients with mechanical heart valves. Despite discordant guidelines and a lack of high-quality data to support any strategy, a majority of the respondents surveyed would use low molecular weight heparin (or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin) to anticoagulate patients with mechanical heart valves during the peri-operative period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second decade of the 21st century will be remembered as a significant milestone in the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic diseases. The approval of target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs) means that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have, for the first time ever, multiple treatment options for the prevention of embolic stroke. Evidence from the landmark registration trials convincingly shows that the TSOACs are at least as safe and effective as warfarin in this setting. Because the new agents do not require routine coagulation monitoring and have very few drug or dietary interactions, they offer both convenience and, possibly, a public health benefit if they are used by patients who otherwise would have declined to take warfarin. However, patients on a highly stable, therapeutic dose of warfarin should not expect better health outcomes if switching to a TSOAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]