Venous Thromboembolism

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that children and teenagers with long COVID have about twice the risk of getting serious outcomes, compared to others without COVID.

Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.

“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.

The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.

The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Less is known about long COVID in children

Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.

To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.

Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.

“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.

“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.


 

A ‘wake-up call’

The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.

“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
 

Still early days

The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?

Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.

The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.

Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that children and teenagers with long COVID have about twice the risk of getting serious outcomes, compared to others without COVID.

Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.

“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.

The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.

The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Less is known about long COVID in children

Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.

To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.

Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.

“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.

“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.


 

A ‘wake-up call’

The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.

“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
 

Still early days

The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?

Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.

The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.

Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that children and teenagers with long COVID have about twice the risk of getting serious outcomes, compared to others without COVID.

Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.

“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.

The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.

The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Less is known about long COVID in children

Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.

To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.

Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.

“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.

“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.


 

A ‘wake-up call’

The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.

“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
 

Still early days

The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?

Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.

The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.

Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.