Search

Background: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Significant variability exists in management options offered to patients., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health care professionals in their decisions about management of VWD., Methods: ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel. Three patient representatives were included. The panel was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Kansas Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit and the McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing and updating systematic evidence reviews (through November 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 12 recommendations and outlined future research priorities., Conclusions: These guidelines make key recommendations regarding prophylaxis for frequent recurrent bleeding, desmopressin trials to determine therapy, use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulant therapy, target VWF and factor VIII activity levels for major surgery, strategies to reduce bleeding during minor surgery or invasive procedures, management options for heavy menstrual bleeding, management of VWD in the context of neuraxial anesthesia during labor and delivery, and management in the postpartum setting., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder known in humans. Accurate and timely diagnosis presents numerous challenges., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about VWD diagnosis., Methods: ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH established a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 4 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) supported the guideline-development process, including performing or updating systematic evidence reviews up to 8 January 2020. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subsequently subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 11 recommendations., Conclusions: Key recommendations of these guidelines include the role of bleeding-assessment tools in the assessment of patients suspected of VWD, diagnostic assays and laboratory cutoffs for type 1 and type 2 VWD, how to approach a type 1 VWD patient with normalized levels over time, and the role of genetic testing vs phenotypic assays for types 2B and 2N. Future critical research priorities are also identified., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Malignancy is a well-established risk factor for venous thromboembolism and while low-molecular-weight heparin therapy has been standard of care for cancer-associated thrombosis for many years, many patients find injection therapy burdensome. The direct oral anticoagulant edoxaban has been shown to be noninferior to dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. In a Markov simulation model, edoxaban with 6-month time horizon and a United States societal perspective with 2017 US dollars, edoxaban was the preferred strategy in the general cancer population (6-month cost $6061 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years) and in a subgroup of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy (6-month cost $7227 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of dalteparin compared to edoxaban was $1,873,535 in the general oncology population and $694,058 in the gastrointestinal malignancy population.

Introduction: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is primarily treated with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), a strategy based on studies showing it to be superior to the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin for preventing VTE recurrence. Subsequent analyses suggest that the magnitude of this benefit might be less than previously determined. Neither patient-focused measures of utility nor the costs of each strategy have been evaluated in the current treatment era., Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis of VKA and LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis through use of a microsimulation model of outcomes for competing anticoagulation management strategies from a 2014 United States societal perspective., Results: LMWH therapy added 0.27 QALYs relative to VKA treatment with an ICER of $217,007. One-way sensitivity analysis evaluating the utility of LMWH revealed that VKA was always the preferred strategy at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Limitations include that the model incorporates a low VKA time in therapeutic range (TTR) and that the TTR in some centers may be higher thereby increasing the cost-effectiveness of the VKA strategy. Utilities for anticoagulation strategies were not derived from cancer patients, and preference is known to vary depending on how anticoagulation method is integrated with cancer treatment., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that compared to LMWH, warfarin is a more cost-effective strategy to treat cancer-associated VTE. Although LMWH is associated with a modest increase in life expectancy, this increase comes at significant cost., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)