Search

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests S.S. has received a research grant from Octapharma; served on data safety monitoring boards for Alexion, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Sanofi; served on event adjudication for Daiichi Sankyo; and served on an advisory board for Servier. D.M.A. received research grants from Rigel Pharmaceuticals and the Public Health Agency of Canada and is a consultant for Amgen, Paradigm, Sobi, Alpine, Novartis, and Argenx. C.A.B. has received a research grant from Amgen, honoraria from BMS-Pfizer, Janssen, and Sanofi, and served on the advisory board for Novartis. L.B. currently owns a stock portfolio with Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer. J.M.C. has received a research grant from CSL Behring and has served on scientific advisory boards for Abbott, Anthos, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Werfen. A.F. has received honoraria from Kedrion and Rovi and served on an advisory board for Sanofi. S.K. has received research grants from Bayer and is a consultant for Inari and Janssen. J.H.L. has served on a data safety monitoring board with Merck, a research study steering committee with Octapharma, and the advisory board for Werfen. S.M. has received research grants from Bayer, Abbvie, Hemab, Viatris, and Sanofi and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Norgine, and Alveron. I.N. has received research grants from Paradigm Pharmaceuticals, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, UCB Biopharma, AstraZeneca, and the Public Health Agency of Canada and is a consultant for Paradigm Pharmaceuticals, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, UCB Biopharma, and AstraZeneca. E.R. has received research grants from Bayer, Pfizer, and Novartis and honoraria from Sanofi, Bayer, Ache, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. C.M.S. served on an advisory board for Norgine Pharma. M.S. has received research grants from Pfizer, Amgen, and Sanofi; received honoraria from Pfizer, Octapharma, Amgen, and Novartis; and served on advisory boards for Amgen and Novartis. A.C.S. has received a research grant from AstraZeneca and honoraria from Janssen, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca. J.T. received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. R.Z. has received research grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, LifeArc, Nation Institute of Health, Research Manitoba, CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Thistledown Foundation, and Manitoba Medical Services Foundation. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. S.S. has been primary author and coauthor on review articles on COVID-19. D.M.A. has been coauthor and senior author on articles on diagnosis and treatment of VITT. C.A.B. has been primary author and co-author on articles on heparins and antiplatelet agents for treatment of COVID-19. J.M.C. has been primary author and coauthor on articles on antiplatelet agents, apixaban, and heparin for treatment of COVID-19. A.F. has been coauthor on review articles on treatment of COVID-19, including with heparin. T.I. has been primary author and coauthor on articles on coagulopathy in COVID-19 and in VITT. S.K. has been coauthor on articles on heparin and antiplatelet agents for treatment of COVID-19. J.H.L. has been primary author and coauthor on articles on coagulopathy in COVID-19 and in VITT and on heparin for treatment of COVID-19. S.M. has been coauthor on articles on heparin and oral anticoagulants for the treatment of COVID-19. I.N. has been primary author, senior author, and coauthor on articles on coagulopathy and laboratory diagnosis in VITT and COVID-19. C.M.S. has been coauthor on articles on coagulopathy in COVID-19. M.S. has been primary author on articles on heparin for treatment of COVID-19. A.C.S. has been primary author and senior author on articles on heparin and coauthor on articles on rivaroxaban for treatment of COVID-19. J.T. has been primary author and coauthor on articles on coagulopathy in COVID-19. R.Z. has been primary author and coauthor on articles on heparin and antiplatelet agents, respectively, for treatment of COVID-19. The remaining authors have no intellectual conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Regulatory B (Breg) cells are potentially implicated in the pathogenesis of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). We analysed a prospective cohort of newly diagnosed steroid naïve ITP patients enrolled in the multicentre FLIGHT trial and found that the numbers of Bregs in their peripheral blood were similar to healthy controls. In contrast, Breg numbers were significantly reduced in ITP patients treated with systemic immunosuppression (glucocorticoids or mycophenolate mofetil). We also demonstrate that glucocorticoid treatment impairs Breg interleukin-10 production via an indirect T-cell-mediated mechanism., (© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation., Objectives: The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin., Methods: Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21., Results: Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low., Conclusions: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis., Competing Interests: The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the 10.13039/100000050National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health, Bethesda and administered through OTA-20 to 011. The research was, in part, funded by the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health (NIH) Agreement 1OT2HL156812 through the 10.13039/100000050National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) CONNECTS program. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the NIH. The ATTACC platform was supported by grants from the 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 10.13039/100012357LifeArc, Thistledown Foundation, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, 10.13039/100008794Research Manitoba, 10.13039/100009395CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, 10.13039/501100023238Victoria General Hospital Foundation, and the 10.13039/501100000226Ontario Ministry of Health. The REMAP-CAP platform was supported by the European Union—through FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION: the Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re)emerging Epidemics (PREPARE) consortium (602525), and 10.13039/100010661Horizon 2020 research and innovation program: the Rapid European Covid-19 Emergency Research response (RECOVER) consortium (101003589)—and by the Australian 10.13039/501100000925National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1101719), the 10.13039/501100001505Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/631), the 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Innovative Clinical Trials Program Grant - 158584, and COVID-19 Rapid Research Operating Grant - 447335), the U.K. NIHR and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, the Health Research Board of Ireland (CTN 2014-012), the UPMC Learning While Doing Program, the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, the French Ministry of Health (PHRC-20-0147), the Minderoo Foundation, Amgen, Eisai, the Global Coalition for Adaptive Research, and the Wellcome Trust Innovations Project (215522). Dr Godoy is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral Research Award) from the 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr Neal has received grants from the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health and 10.13039/100000005United States Department of Defense; has received research support from Haemonetics, Janssen and Instrumentation Laboratories; has received honoraria from Haemonetics, 10.13039/100005565Janssen, and 10.13039/501100014255CSL Behring; and serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Haima Therapeutics. Dr Goligher has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Getinge, nonfinancial support from Timpel, outside the submitted work. Dr Cushman has received personal fees from the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health, during the conduct of the study. Dr Bradbury has received personal fees from BMS Pfizer; nonfinancial support from 10.13039/100002429Amgen; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; personal fees and nonfinancial support from 10.13039/100004336Novartis; personal fees from Janssen; personal fees from Portola; and personal fees from Ablynx, outside the submitted work. Dr Tritschler is a member of the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Research Network (CanVECTOR); the network receives grant funding from the 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CDT-142654). Dr Kahn is supported by a Tier 1 10.13039/501100001804Canada Research Chair. Dr L. Berry has received grants from PREPARE Network, 10.13039/501100000780European Commission through University Antwerp, grants from OPTIMISE CAP. She reports Australia funding through Monash University; grants from REMAP-CAP; New Zealand funding through Medical Research Institute of New Zealand; grants from Global Coalition for Adaptive Research (GCAR); United States funding through grants from ATTACC; Canada funding through 10.13039/100009663University Health Network, grants from ACTIV-4; and reports IP funding, 10.13039/100007921University of Pittsburgh, during the conduct of the study. Dr Lorenzi has received grants from PREPARE in EU (University Antwerp), grants from OPTIMISE-CAP in Australia (Monash University), grants from REMAP-CAP in New Zealand (Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (MRINZ)), grants from REMAP-COVID in the US (GCAR), grants from ATTACC in Canada (10.13039/100009663University Health Network), grants from ACTIV-4 IP in the U.S. (10.13039/100007125University of Pittsburgh), during the conduct of the study. Dr Higgins has received grants from 10.13039/501100000925National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from 10.13039/501100016056Minderoo Foundation, during the conduct of the study. Dr Berger has received grants from 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health - 10.13039/100000050NHLBI, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr Gong has received grants from 10.13039/100000050NHLBI, during the conduct of the study. Dr Castellucci has received unrelated honoraria received from Bayer, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, The Academy, LEO Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, and Valeo; and holds a Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada National New Investigator Award, and a Tier 2 research Chair in Thrombosis and Anticoagulation Safety from the University of Ottawa. Dr Le Gal holds a Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada National Clinician-Scientist Award, and the Chair on Diagnosis of Venous Thromboembolism from the University of Ottawa. Dr Rosenson has a patent EFSID 40934007 pending. Dr Derde has received grants from EU FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1, grant number 602525, grants from H2020 RECOVER grant agreement No 101003589, during the conduct of the study; COVID-19 guideline committee SCCM/ESICM/ SSC, ESICM COVID-19 taskforce, Dutch intensivists (NVIC) taskforce infectious threats, outside the submitted work. Dr Kumar has received grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr McVerry has received grants from 10.13039/100000002NIH - National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, during the conduct of the study; grants from Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr Nicolau has received personal fees from AMGEN, grants from 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants from 10.13039/501100022336Esperion, grants from CLS Behring, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, grants from Dalcor, grants from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from NovoNordisk, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Servier, grants from Vifor, outside the submitted work. Dr Huang has received grants from the 10.13039/100000002NIH, during the conduct of the study. Dr Reynolds has received grants from 10.13039/100000050National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from 10.13039/100011949Abbott Vascular, nonfinancial support from BioTelemetry Inc, nonfinancial support from 10.13039/100004340Siemens, outside the submitted work. Dr Carrier has received grants from 10.13039/100004319Pfizer, grants from 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research, grants from 10.13039/100002491BMS, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Leo Pharma, grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr S. Berry reports grants from PREPARE Network, grants from Optimise-CAP, grants from REMAP-CAP, grants from GCAR, grants from 10.13039/100009663University Health Network, grants from 10.13039/100007125University of Pittsburgh, during the conduct of the study. Dr Webb reports grants from 10.13039/501100000925National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from 10.13039/501100016056Minderoo Foundation, during the conduct of the study. Dr Turgeon reports grants from 10.13039/100022992Canadian Institutes of Health Research, during the conduct of the study. Dr McArthur has received grants from 10.13039/501100001505Health Research Council of New Zealand, during the conduct of the study. Dr Farkouh has received grants from 10.13039/100002429Amgen, grants from Novo Nordisk, grants from 10.13039/100004336Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Hochman is a principal investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial which, in addition to funding by 10.13039/100000002NIH, received support in the form of devices and medications provided by: Medtronic, Inc; Abbott Vascular, Inc (formerly St. Jude Medical, Inc); Royal Philips NV (formerly Volcano Corporation); Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp; Omron Healthcare, Inc; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Espero BioPharma; and Amgen Inc; and financial donations from Arbor Pharmaceuticals LLC and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Dr Zarychanski has received unrelated grant funding from the 10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 10.13039/100009395CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, and 10.13039/100008794Research Manitoba and receives operating support as the Lyonel G. Israels Research Chair in Hematology at the 10.13039/100010318University of Manitoba. Dr Lawler has received unrelated consulting fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and unrelated royalties from McGraw-Hill Publishing; and is supported by a Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada National New Investigator career award. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear., Methods: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2)., Results: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control., Conclusions: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility., Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy., Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Importance: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19., Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes., Results: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Objective: Cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of cancer-related death. Historically, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were the gold standard therapy for cancer-associated VTE, but recent evidence supports the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE and this is now reflected in many guidelines. However, uptake of direct factor Xa inhibitors varies and guidance on the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in specific cancer sub-populations and clinical situations is lacking. This review presents consensus expert opinion alongside evaluation of evidence to support healthcare professionals in the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE., Methods: Recent guidelines, meta-analyses, reviews and clinical studies on anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE were used to direct clinically relevant topics and evidence to be systematically discussed using nominal group technique. The consensus manuscript and recommendations were developed based on these discussions., Results: Considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE include cancer site and stage, systemic anti-cancer therapy (including vascular access), drug-drug interactions, length of anticoagulation, quality of life and needs during palliative care. Treatment of patients with kidney or liver impairment, gastrointestinal disorders, extremes of bodyweight, elevated bleeding or recurrence risk, VTE recurrence and COVID-19 is discussed., Conclusion: Anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE patients should be carefully selected with consideration given to the relative benefits of specific drugs when individualizing care. Direct factor Xa inhibitors are typically the treatment of choice for preventing VTE recurrence in non-cancer patients and should also be considered as such for cancer-associated VTE in most situations.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown., Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83., Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations., (© 2022 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background:  The long-term risk of major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain., Objectives:  To determine the incidence of major bleeding up to 5 years after discontinuing anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE., Methods:  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (from inception to January 2021) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulation in patients with a first unprovoked or weakly provoked VTE who had completed (IMAGE&#95;)3 months of initial treatment. Unpublished data on major bleeding events and person-years were obtained from authors of included studies to calculate study-level incidence rates. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies., Results:  Of 1,123 records identified by the search, 20 studies (17 RCTs) and 8,740 patients were included in the analysis. During 13,011 person-years of follow-up after discontinuing anticoagulation, the pooled incidence of major bleeding ( n  = 41) and fatal bleeding ( n  = 7) per 100 person-years was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.54) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.05-0.15). The 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding was of 1.0% (95% CI: 0.4-2.4%). The case-fatality rate of major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulation was 19.9% (95% CI: 10.6-31.1%)., Conclusion:  The risk of major bleeding once anticoagulants are discontinued in patients with a first unprovoked VTE is not zero. Estimates from this study can help clinicians counsel patients about the incremental risk of major bleeding with extended anticoagulation to guide decision making about treatment duration for unprovoked VTE., Competing Interests: M.C. reports receiving research support form Leo Pharma and BMS, and honoraria from Pfizer, Bayer, BMS, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. S.S. reports receiving honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer HealthCare, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi, and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Baxter, and Octapharma, outside the submitted work. J.I.W. reports receiving honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the scope of the submitted work. F.C. reports having received research grant support from Pfizer, honoraria for board memberships or symposia from Bayer and AstraZeneca, and travel support from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Intermune, and Actelion, outside the submitted work. C.B. reports receiving lecture fees from Bayer HealthCare, Bristol Meyer Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. G.A. reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. T.A.B. reports receiving personal fees from Bayer, Bayer Australia, Novo Nordisk, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. W.A.L. reports being an employee of Bayer HealthCare. G.P. reports advisory Board for Alfa-Wassermann, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Roche, and speaker fees from Werfen, outside the submitted work. B.H. reports receiving honoraria from Cornerstone Research Group for provision of methodologic advice related to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. P.P. reports receiving consultancy and lectures fees from Bayer Pharma, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. H.R.B. reports receiving research support and consultancy fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer HealthCare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Isis, Thrombogenics, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. G.L.-G. holds the Chair on Diagnosis of Venous Thromboembolism at the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, and a Clinician-Scientist Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. M.R. is the McGill University Harry Webster Thorp Professor of Medicine. G.L.-G reports other support from Portola Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, LEO Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Sanofi, and bioMerieux, outside the submitted work. No other authors disclosed any competing interests., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions., Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive., Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021., Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events., Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Background: The long-term risk for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) during extended anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE is uncertain., Objectives: To determine the incidence of recurrent VTE during extended anticoagulation of up to 5 years in patients with a first unprovoked VTE., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL were searched to identify randomized trials and prospective cohort studies reporting recurrent VTE among patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were to receive anticoagulation for a minimum of six additional months after completing ≥3 months of initial treatment. Unpublished data on number of recurrent VTE and person-years, obtained from authors of included studies, were used to calculate study-level incidence rate, and random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results., Results: Twenty-six studies and 15 603 patients were included in the analysis. During 11 631 person-years of follow-up, the incidence of recurrent VTE and fatal pulmonary embolism per 100 person-years was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.03-1.84) and 0.09 (0.04-0.16), with 5-year cumulative incidences of 7.1% (3.0%-13.2%) and 1.2% (0.4%-4.6%), respectively. The incidence of recurrent VTE was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.77-1.44) with direct oral anticoagulants and 1.55 (1.01-2.20) with vitamin K antagonists. The case-fatality rate of recurrent VTE was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.7%)., Conclusions: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, the long-term risk of recurrent VTE during extended anticoagulation is low but not negligible. Thus, clinicians and patients should be aware of this risk and take appropriate and timely action in case of suspicion of recurrent VTE. Estimates from this study can be used to advise patients on what to expect while receiving extended anticoagulation, and estimate the net clinical benefit of extended treatment to guide long-term management of unprovoked VTE., (© 2021 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background: The long-term risk for major bleeding in patients receiving extended (beyond the initial 3 to 6 months) anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain., Purpose: To determine the incidence of major bleeding during extended anticoagulation of up to 5 years among patients with a first unprovoked VTE, overall, and in clinically important subgroups., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 23 July 2021., Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were to receive oral anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 additional months after completing at least 3 months of initial anticoagulant treatment., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. Unpublished data required for analyses were obtained from authors of included studies., Data Synthesis: Among the 14 RCTs and 13 cohort studies included in the analysis, 9982 patients received a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and 7220 received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). The incidence of major bleeding per 100 person-years was 1.74 events (95% CI, 1.34 to 2.20 events) with VKAs and 1.12 events (CI, 0.72 to 1.62 events) with DOACs. The 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding with VKAs was 6.3% (CI, 3.6% to 10.0%). Among patients receiving either a VKA or a DOAC, the incidence of major bleeding was statistically significantly higher among those who were older than 65 years or had creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min, a history of bleeding, concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy, or a hemoglobin level less than 100 g/L. The case-fatality rate of major bleeding was 8.3% (CI, 5.1% to 12.2%) with VKAs and 9.7% (CI, 3.2% to 19.2%) with DOACs., Limitation: Data were insufficient to estimate incidence of major bleeding beyond 1 year of extended anticoagulation with DOACs., Conclusion: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, the long-term risks and consequences of anticoagulant-related major bleeding are considerable. This information will help inform patient prognosis and guide decision making about treatment duration for unprovoked VTE., Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (PROSPERO: CRD42019128597).

Background: Immune thrombocytopenia is a rare autoimmune disorder with associated bleeding risk and fatigue. Recommended first-line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia is high-dose glucocorticoids, but side effects, variable responses, and high relapse rates are serious drawbacks., Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in the United Kingdom, we assigned adult patients with immune thrombocytopenia, in a 1:1 ratio, to first-line treatment with a glucocorticoid only (standard care) or combined glucocorticoid and mycophenolate mofetil. The primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure, defined as a platelet count of less than 30×10 9 per liter and initiation of a second-line treatment, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were response rates, side effects, occurrence of bleeding, patient-reported quality-of-life measures, and serious adverse events., Results: A total of 120 patients with immune thrombocytopenia underwent randomization (52.4% male; mean age, 54 years [range 17 to 87]; mean platelet level, 7×10 9 per liter) and were followed for up to 2 years after beginning trial treatment. The mycophenolate mofetil group had fewer treatment failures than the glucocorticoid-only group (22% [13 of 59 patients] vs. 44% [27 of 61 patients]; hazard ratio, 0.41; range, 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.008) and greater response (91.5% of patients having platelet counts greater than 100×10 9 per liter vs. 63.9%; P<0.001). We found no evidence of a difference between the groups in the occurrence of bleeding, rescue treatments, or treatment side effects, including infection. However, patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group reported worse quality-of-life outcomes regarding physical function and fatigue than those in the glucocorticoid-only group., Conclusions: The addition of mycophenolate mofetil to a glucocorticoid for first-line treatment of immune thrombocytopenia resulted in greater response and a lower risk of refractory or relapsed immune thrombocytopenia, but with somewhat decreased quality of life. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; FLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03156452; EudraCT number, 2017-001171-23.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable., Results: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively)., Conclusion: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear., Methods: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both., Results: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists., Conclusions: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is thought to result from an aberrant adaptive autoimmune response, involving autoantibodies, B and T lymphocytes, directed at platelets and megakaryocytes. Previous reports have demonstrated skewed CD4 + T-helper subset distribution and enhanced production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin 17A and interferon gamma. The role of monocytes (MCs) in ITP is less widely described, but innate immune cells have a role in shaping CD4 + T-cell phenotypes. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are commonly used for first-line ITP treatment and modulate a broad range of immune cells including T cells and MCs. Using multiparameter flow cytometry analysis, we demonstrate the expansion of intermediate MCs (CD14 ++ CD16 + ) in untreated patients with newly diagnosed ITP, with these cells displaying a pro-inflammatory phenotype, characterised by enhanced expression of CD64 and CD80. After 2 weeks of prednisolone treatment (1 mg/kg daily), the proportion of intermediate MCs reduced, with enhanced expression of the anti-inflammatory markers CD206 and CD163. Healthy control MCs were distinctly different than MCs from patients with ITP before and after GC treatment. Furthermore, the GC-induced phenotype was not observed in patients with chronic ITP receiving thrombopoietin receptor agonists. These data suggest a role of MCs in ITP pathogenesis and clinical response to GC therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons.)

Background: Corticosteroids remain the first-line treatment for patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). However, 20% to 30% of patients do not respond to treatment at tolerable doses. This variation in corticosteroid efficacy is replicated in other autoimmune diseases and may have an adaptive immune basis., Objective: To test the hypothesis that CD4 + T-cell responses to corticosteroids are different in patients with clinically defined corticosteroid refractory ITP., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, CD4 + T cells from patients with ITP were cultured in the presence or absence of dexamethasone (Dex). Intracellular cytokine expression was then quantified by flow cytometry and compared with patients' clinical response to corticosteroid treatment. A control cohort of patients with autoimmune uveitis was also studied to evaluate whether our findings were limited to ITP or are potentially generalizable across autoimmune diseases., Results: The ratio of interleukin (IL)-10 to IL-17 expression following CD4 + T cell culture with Dex was able to discriminate between ITP patients with a clinically defined complete (n = 33), partial (n = 12) or nonresponse (n = 11) to corticosteroid treatment (P = .002). These findings were replicated in patients with autoimmune uveitis (complete response n = 14, nonresponse n = 22; P = .01)., Conclusions: There is a relative abrogation of IL-10 and persistence of IL-17 expression in the CD4 + T cells of patients who clinically fail corticosteroid therapy. This observation has potential to inform both our mechanistic understanding of the action of corticosteroids in the treatment of ITP, and as a biomarker for steroid refractory disease, with potential application across a range of hematological and nonhematological conditions., (© 2020 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background: Optimal prophylactic and therapeutic management of thromboembolic disease in patients with COVID-19 remains a major challenge for clinicians. The aim of this study was to define the incidence of thrombotic and haemorrhagic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19. In addition, we sought to characterise coagulation profiles using thromboelastography and explore possible biological differences between patients with and without thrombotic complications., Methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective observational study evaluating all the COVID-19 patients received in four intensive care units (ICUs) of four tertiary hospitals in the UK between March 15, 2020, and May 05, 2020. Clinical characteristics, laboratory data, thromboelastography profiles and clinical outcome data were evaluated between patients with and without thrombotic complications., Results: A total of 187 patients were included. Their median (interquartile (IQR)) age was 57 (49-64) years and 124 (66.3%) patients were male. Eighty-one (43.3%) patients experienced one or more clinically relevant thrombotic complications, which were mainly pulmonary emboli (n = 42 (22.5%)). Arterial embolic complications were reported in 25 (13.3%) patients. ICU length of stay was longer in patients with thrombotic complications when compared with those without. Fifteen (8.0%) patients experienced haemorrhagic complications, of which nine (4.8%) were classified as major bleeding. Thromboelastography demonstrated a hypercoagulable profile in patients tested but lacked discriminatory value between those with and without thrombotic complications. Patients who experienced thrombotic complications had higher D-dimer, ferritin, troponin and white cell count levels at ICU admission compared with those that did not., Conclusion: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 experience high rates of venous and arterial thrombotic complications. The rates of bleeding may be higher than previously reported and re-iterate the need for randomised trials to better understand the risk-benefit ratio of different anticoagulation strategies.

Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but data are lacking from large prospective cohorts. We present thrombosis outcome data from Myeloma IX (n = 1936) and Myeloma XI (n = 4358) phase 3 randomized controlled trials for NDMM that treated transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients before and after publication of thrombosis prevention guidelines. In Myeloma IX, transplant-eligible patients randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (CVAD) induction had higher risk of VTE compared with patients treated with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) (22.5% [n = 121 of 538] vs 16.1% [n = 89 of 554]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR],1.46; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.11-1.93). For transplant-ineligible patients, those randomly assigned to attenuated CTD (CTDa) induction had a higher risk of VTE compared with those treated with melphalan and prednisolone (MP) (16.0% [n = 68 of 425] vs 4.1% [n = 17 of 419]; aHR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.50-7.20). In Myeloma XI, there was no difference in risk of VTE (12.2% [n = 124 of 1014] vs 13.2% [n = 133 of 1008]; aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.18) or arterial thrombosis (1.2% [n = 12 of 1014] vs 1.5% [n = 15 of 1008]; aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.37-1.70) between transplant-eligible pathways for patients treated with cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD) or CTD. For transplant-ineligible patients, there was no difference in VTEs between attenuated CRD (CRDa) and CTDa (10.4% [n = 95 of 916] vs 10.7% [n = 97 of 910]; aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29). However, arterial risk was higher with CRDa than with CTDa (3.1% [n = 28 of 916] vs 1.6% [n = 15 of 910]; aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57). Thrombotic events occurred almost entirely within 6 months of treatment initiation. Thrombosis was not associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), apart from inferior OS for patients with arterial events (aHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.08) in Myeloma XI. The Myeloma XI trial protocol incorporated International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) thrombosis prevention recommendations and compared with Myeloma IX, more patients received thromboprophylaxis (80.5% vs 22.3%) with lower rates of VTE for identical regimens (CTD, 13.2% vs 16.1%; CTDa, 10.7% vs 16.0%). However, thrombosis remained frequent in spite of IMWG-guided thromboprophylaxis, suggesting that new approaches are needed., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Introduction: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune condition that may cause thrombocytopenia-related bleeding. Current first-line ITP treatment is with high-dose corticosteroids but frequent side effects, heterogeneous responses and high relapse rates are significant problems with only 20% remaining in sustained remission with this approach. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is often used as the next treatment with efficacy in 50%-80% of patients and good tolerability but can take up to 2 months to work., Objective: To test the hypothesis that MMF combined with corticosteroid is a more effective first-line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) than current standard of corticosteroid alone., Methods and Analysis: DesignMulticentre, UK-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Haematology departments in secondary care., Participants: We plan to recruit 120 patients >16 years old with a diagnosis of ITP and a platelet count <30x10 9 /L who require first-line treatment. Patients will be followed up for a minimum of 12 months following randomisation., Primary Outcome: Time from randomisation to treatment failure defined as platelets <30x10 9 /L and a need for second-line treatment., Secondary Outcomes: Side effects, bleeding events, remission rates, time to relapse, time to next therapy, cumulative corticosteroid dose, rescue therapy, splenectomy, socioeconomic costs, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, fatigue, impact of bleeding, care costs)., Analysis: The sample size of 120 achieves a 91.5% power to detect a doubling of the median time to treatment failure from 5 to 10 months. This will be expressed as an HR with 95% CI, median time to event if more than 50% have had an event and illustrated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Cost-effectiveness will be based on the first 12 months from diagnosis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval from NRES Committee South West (IRAS number 225959). EudraCT Number: 2017-001171-23. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03156452., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

OBJECTIVE To characterize aminoaciduria and plasma amino acid concentrations in dogs with hepatocutaneous syndrome (HCS). ANIMALS 20 client-owned dogs of various breeds and ages. PROCEDURES HCS was definitively diagnosed on the basis of liver biopsy specimens (n = 12), gross and histologic appearance of skin lesions (4), and examination of skin and liver biopsy specimens (2) and presumptively diagnosed on the basis of cutaneous lesions with compatible clinicopathologic and hepatic ultrasonographic (honeycomb or Swiss cheese pattern) findings (2). Amino acid concentrations in heparinized plasma and urine (samples obtained within 8 hours of each other) were measured by use of ion exchange chromatography. Urine creatinine concentration was used to normalize urine amino acid concentrations. Plasma amino acid values were compared relative to mean reference values; urine-corrected amino acid values were compared relative to maximal reference values. RESULTS All dogs had generalized hypoaminoacidemia, with numerous amino acid concentrations < 50% of mean reference values. The most consistent and severe abnormalities involved glutamine, proline, cysteine, and hydroxyproline, and all dogs had marked lysinuria. Urine amino acids exceeding maximum reference values (value > 1.0) included lysine, 1-methylhistidine, and proline. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Hypoaminoacidemia in dogs with HCS prominently involved amino acids associated with the urea cycle and synthesis of glutathione and collagen. Marked lysinuria and prolinuria implicated dysfunction of specific amino acid transporters and wasting of amino acids essential for collagen synthesis. These findings may provide a means for tailoring nutritional support and for facilitating HCS diagnosis.

l-Asparaginase is a potent antileukemia agent and an essential part of treatment protocols for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, toxicity limits dose escalation, especially in adults. This includes a significant risk of thrombosis, which remains an important source of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Here, we provide a detailed report of 10 cases of cerebral thrombotic complications that occurred over a 5-year period at 4 large tertiary referral hospitals. To our knowledge, this is the first report of this type in the published literature., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

It is known that alterations in respiratory gases in birds can cause a nonhomogenous redistribution of pulmonary blood flow between the 2 separate gas-exchanging regions of the avian lung, the paleopulmo (PALEO) and neopulmo (NEO); however, the effect of alterations in respired gas content on the distribution of pulmonary blood flow in birds, such as the chicken, that possess a highly developed NEO is not known. This study used a colorimetric microsphere method to determine the effects of hypoxia and hypercapnia on the relative distribution of pulmonary blood flow in anesthetized chickens (Gallus domesticus) during control (normoxic) and experimental (hypoxic or hypercapnic) conditions, where the relative regional distribution of blood flow in the lung is expressed as the ratio NEO/PALEO. Administration of a hypoxic gas mixture (16.0% O(2)) produced a 13.4% increase in NEO/PALEO, and, administration of a hypercapnic gas mixture (5.0% CO(2)) resulted in a 27.8% increase in NEO/PALEO. Our results are consistent with a mechanism in which the regional redistribution of pulmonary blood flow is mediated by local intrapulmonary factors.

Objective: To determine whether monthly topical administration of a combination of 10% imidacloprid and 1% moxidectin would lessen flea (Ctenocephalides felis) transmission of Bartonella henselae among cats., Design: Controlled trial., Animals: 18 specific pathogen-free cats housed in 3 groups of 6., Procedures: 3 enclosures were separated by mesh to allow fleas to pass among groups yet prevent cats from contacting one another. One group was inoculated IV with B henselae, and after infection was confirmed, the cats were housed in the middle enclosure. This infected group was flanked by a group that was treated topically with 10% imidacloprid-1% moxidectin monthly for 3 months and by an untreated group. On days 0, 15, 28, and 42, 100 fleas/cat were placed on each of the 6 cats in the B henselae-infected group. Blood samples were collected from all cats weekly for detection of Bartonella spp via PCR assay, bacterial culture, and serologic assay., Results: B henselae infection was confirmed in the cats infected IV and in all untreated cats after flea exposure; none of the cats treated with the imidacloprid-moxidectin combination became infected., Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: In this setting, monthly topical administration of 10% imidacloprid-1% moxidectin reduced flea infestation, compared with infestation in untreated cats, and thus prevented flea transmission of B henselae to treated cats. Regular monthly use of this flea control product in cats may lessen the likelihood of humans acquiring B henselae infection.

Canine prostatic disease is commonly evaluated with abdominal ultrasound and radiographs. Mineralization of the prostate is often reported, but the clinical relevance of this finding is currently not known. The-purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between ultrasonographic and radiographic prostate mineralization and the final diagnosis. Medical records of 55 dogs with evidence of prostatomegaly or prostatic mineralization and a cytologic diagnosis were evaluated. Radiographs and ultrasound images were assessed for caudal retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, vertebral lesions, or other signs of metastasis, and mineralization was assessed semiquantitatively. Twenty-two of 55 (40%) dogs had prostatic neoplasia. Regarding neoplasia, mineralization in neutered dogs had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 50%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 100%, respectively. Mineralization in intact dogs had a PPV of 22%, an NPV of 96%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 77%, respectively. All neutered dogs with prostatomegaly but not prostatic neoplasia had bacterial prostatitis and were castrated within the previous 3 months. Intact dogs with prostatomegaly and mineralization but not neoplasia had paraprostatic cysts (n = 3), benign prostatic hyperplasia (n = 2) or prostatitis (n = 2). Mineralization score was not indicative of neoplasia. In conclusion, neutered dogs with prostatic mineralization were very likely to have prostatic neoplasia. Intact dogs were unlikely to have prostatic neoplasia if no mineralization was found on radiographs or ultrasound.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDIs) are emerging as valuable new agents in the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, since response rates to these agents alone are low, we sought to identify markers associated with responsiveness. In a trial of 20 patients treated with the HDI sodium valproate (VPA) in combination with all trans retinoic acid and theophylline, three patients responded clinically with one complete remission (CR) and two partial remissions. The in vivo response of the CR patient was mirrored by high in vitro sensitivity of their blasts to VPA, indicating that similar factors determine both in vivo and in vitro sensitivity. Microarray analysis of the primary AMLs and a panel of haemato-lymphoid cell lines, with a similar range of VPA sensitivities as the primary leukaemic blasts, identified elevated FOSB-expression as a potential marker of VPA sensitivity. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction confirmed overexpression of FOSB in the CR patient blasts compared to patients failing to achieve CR, and in a subset of a larger panel of AML samples. Overexpression of FOSB in K562 myeloid cells significantly increased in vitro sensitivity to VPA. Thus, we propose that FOSB is a novel, potential marker of VPA sensitivity in AML.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDIs) are a new class of drugs with significant antileukemic activity. To explore mechanisms of disease-specific HDI activity in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), we have characterised expression of all 18 members of the histone deacetylase family in primary AML blasts and in four control cell types, namely CD34+ progenitors from umbilical cord, either quiescent or cycling (post-culture), cycling CD34+ progenitors from GCSF-stimulated adult donors and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Only SIRT1 was consistently overexpressed (>2 fold) in AML samples compared with all controls, while HDAC6 was overexpressed relative to adult, but not neo-natal cells. HDAC5 and SIRT4 were consistently underexpressed. AML blasts and cell lines, exposed to HDIs in culture, showed both histone hyperacetylation and, unexpectedly, specific hypermethylation of H3 lysine 4. Such treatment also modulated the pattern of HDAC expression, with strong induction of HDAC11 in all myeloid cells tested and with all inhibitors (valproate, butyrate, TSA, SAHA), and lesser, more selective, induction of HDAC9 and SIRT4. The distinct pattern of HDAC expression in AML and its response to HDIs is of relevance to the development of HDI-based therapeutic strategies and may contribute to observed patterns of clinical response and development of drug resistance.

The apparatus described in this report provides a noninvasive, nonocclusive technique for continuously measuring cutaneous blood pressure changes over extended periods of time. The data are acquired with miniature pressure transducers mechanically coupled to the cutaneous tissue overlying the thumb and wrist. The cutaneous blood pressure patterns obtained with this apparatus indicate that the stress of uterine contractions causes readily identifiable blood pressure pattern changes. Preliminary results suggest that data obtained with this instrumentation is more complete than that obtainable with intermittent occlusive blood pressure measuring systems currently in use.