2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of venous thromboembolism – Authors' reply

Association of coagulation-related indicators with postoperative venous thromboembolism occurrence in patients with pituitary tumors

This study aimed to analyze risk factors for postoperative VTE in pituitary tumor resection patients, focusing on coagulation indicators and their predictive value. This study collected clinical data from 300 patients who underwent pituitary adenoma resection from January 2021 to August 2023 in the Department of Neurosurgery, the Second Clinical College of the Army Medical University, China. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify risk factors for VTE. Restricted cubic spline curves were used to characterize the dose-response relationship between coagulation-related indicators and the risk of venous thromboembolism. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the predictive power of coagulation-related indicators. Multivariate analysis showed that D-dimer, platelet count and hemoglobin (Hb) were significant predictors of VTE with OR (95% CI) of 1.967 (1.441-2.808), 1.020 (1.013-1.029), and 0.952 (0.914-0.994), respectively. The AUCs for D-dimer, Platelet Count, and Hb were 0.708, 0.731, and 0.712, respectively. The AUC for combining the three coagulation indices was the largest, 0.838. The combined use of D-dimer, Hb, and platelet count can identify high-risk patients early, enabling timely implementation of antithrombotic strategies.

Impact of COVID-19 in the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and clinical outcomes in cancer patients: a cohort study

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of VTE and clinical outcomes in a cohort of cancer patients and COVID-19 infection, and to establish possible predictive factors of VTE.

METHODS/PATIENTS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the incidence of VTE and mortality in 118 cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to August 2020. We calculated individual Khorana Risk and CATS-MICA scores in order to evaluate their utility to identify risk of VTE or death. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon or Student's T test, and categorical variables were compared using the Chi-Square or Fisher's exact text among patients with and without VTE. A Log-Rank test was performed to detect mortality differences between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included. VTE global incidence was 4.2% (n = 5), and mortality 25.4% (n = 30). Obesity (p = 0.05), recent chemotherapy (p = 0.049) and use of steroids (p = 0.006) were related to higher risk of VTE in the univariate analysis, although they were not confirmed in the multivariate analysis as independent risk factors. Statistically significant differences in all-cause, COVID-19-related and cancer-related mortality according to the Khorana risk score (KRS) were observed. CATS-MICA score (CMS) also showed statistically significant differences in mortality between low- and high-risk patients. Prediction of risk of VTE development with these scores showed a tendency towards significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, VTE incidence was similar to previously reported in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. KRS was associated with overall and specific-cause mortality, and might be a useful prognostic tool in this setting.

Current evidence on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Thromboembolic events in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity, in which vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been used mostly. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are used in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). With the adoption of data from CAT and VTE, the usage of DOACs in MPNs is increasing.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we performed a systematic review to the current literature regarding the usage of DOACs in MPNs. Eleven studies involving 944 patients were included. The reasons for initiating DOACs were secondary prophylaxis for thrombosis (arterial or venous) and atrial fibrillation (AF) in 562 and 382 patients, respectively. A total of 84 (8.9%) recurrent thrombotic (arterial or venous) events recorded. Forty-six (8.1%) events occurred in the thrombosis group (arterial or venous) and 38 (9.9%) events occurred in patients with AF.

EXPERT OPINION

Ease of management and patient comfort should be regarded as benefits of DOACs compared to VKAs. However, it would be appropriate to bring an individualized approach until we obtain high-quality data with prospectively designed studies involving more patients and longer follow-up time concerning the use of DOACs in patients with MPNs.

Low-molecular-weight heparin beyond 12 months in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines indicate that in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), anticoagulant treatment should be continued beyond 6 months as long as the cancer is active. We aimed to analyse the safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) beyond 12 months in patients with CAT.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of consecutive CAT patients from October 2008 to December 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically relevant bleeding (CRB), and we compared two periods (1-12 vs. 12-24 months). Hazard ratio (HR), competing risk analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 588 patients included, 30.1% (n = 177) received LMWH beyond 12 months. The rate of CRB in the first 12 months compared to the 12-24 month period was 3.2 per 100 patients/month (95% CI 2.5-4.1) vs. 0.9 per 100 patients/month (95% CI 0.4-1.5), (P < 0.0001). The competing risk analysis of CRB comparing both periods showed a lower sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) during the period 12-24 months (SHR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cancer-associated thrombosis under anticoagulant treatment with LMWH, the rate of clinically relevant bleeding and major bleeding were lower beyond 12 months.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.

METHODS

Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

A Review of the Past, Present and Future of Cancer-associated Thrombosis Management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can have a significant impact on the management, quality of life and mortality of patients with cancer. VTE occurs in 5-20% of patients with cancer, and malignancy is associated with up to 25% of all VTE. It is the second leading cause of death in ambulatory patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Increased rates of cancer-associated thrombosis are attributed to improved patient survival, increased awareness, surgery, antineoplastic treatments and the use of central venous access devices. Many factors influence cancer-associated thrombosis risk and are broadly categorized into patient-related, cancer-related and treatment-related risks. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants have shown themselves to be at least as effective in preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer with symptomatic and incidental VTE. This has led to a change in treatment paradigms so that direct-acting oral anticoagulants are now considered first-line agents in appropriately selected patients. In this article, we review the prior and recent landmark studies that have directed the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis, and discuss specific factors that affect management as well as future treatment considerations.

Challenging issues in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is associated with delays in underlying cancer treatment and increases in morbidity and mortality. Acute and long-term treatments with low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) have been recommended as a standard of care for patients with cancer with VTE for the past 20 years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic modality for cancer-associated VTE because of the convenience of oral administration and rapid onset of action. Our knowledge regarding DOACs for cancer-associated VTD has expanded in recent years. Thus, this study aimed to review recent major pivotal trials comparing DOACs with LMWH for managing cancer-associated VTE. Moreover, a recently updated understanding of DOACs in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in specific challenging situations is presented.

Cardio-Oncology: A Myriad of Relationships Between Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the leading causes of death worldwide. With an increasing number of the elderly population, and early cancer screening and treatment, the number of cancers cases are rising, while the mortality rate is decreasing. However, the number of cancer survivors is increasing yearly. With the prolonged life span of cancer patients, the adverse effects of anti-tumor therapy, especially CVD, have gained enormous attention. The incidence of cardiovascular events such as cardiac injury or cardiovascular toxicity is higher than malignant tumors' recurrence rate. Numerous clinical studies have also shifted their focus from the study of a single disease to the interdisciplinary study of oncology and cardiology. Previous studies have confirmed that anti-tumor therapy can cause CVD. Additionally, the treatment of CVD is also related to the tumors incidence. It is well established that the increased incidence of CVD in cancer patients is probably due to an unmodified unhealthy lifestyle among cancer survivors or cardiotoxicity caused by anti-cancer therapy. Nevertheless, some patients with CVD have a relatively increased cancer risk because CVD and malignant tumors are highly overlapping risk factors, including gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, inflammation, and obesity. With advancements in the diagnosis and treatment, many patients simultaneously suffer from CVD and cancer, and most of them have a poor prognosis. Therefore, clinicians should understand the relationship between CVD and tumors, effectively identify the primary and secondary prevention for these diseases, and follow proper treatment methods.

Effectiveness and safety of apixaban, LMWH, and warfarin among high-risk subgroups of VTE patients with active cancer

OBJECTIVE

This pooled claims database study evaluated the risk of recurrent Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding (MB) among patients with VTE and active cancer prescribed apixaban, low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or warfarin stratified by high-risk subgroups.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with VTE in the setting of active cancer who initiated apixaban, LMWH, or warfarin were identified using four US commercial claims databases from 01SEP2014 to the end of the study period (MarketScan: 01MAR2014-30JUNE2017; Optum and Humana: 01MAR2014-31DEC2017; PharMetrics: 01MAR2014-31MAR2018). Stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment cohorts. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the risk of recurrent VTE and MB for each subgroup stratification: VTE risk level based on cancer types, metastatic diagnosis, cancer treatment, chemotherapy, gastrointestinal cancer, and index VTE event type (PE vs. DVT). Statistical significance (p < .10) of the interaction between treatment effects and subgroups was evaluated.

RESULTS

Eligible subjects included 3393 apixaban, 6108 LMWH, and 4585 warfarin patients. After IPTW, all patient characteristics were balanced. Analyses stratified by the VTE risk level, metastatic diagnosis, cancer treatment, chemotherapy, gastrointestinal cancer and index VTE event type showed generally consistent results according to the respective subgroup (most of the p values for interaction >0.10). Two significant interactions were observed between apixaban vs. LMWH and VTE risk level (interaction p = .051) and metastatic diagnosis (interaction p < .001) for recurrent VTE; one significant interactions were observed between apixaban vs. LMWH and cancer treatment for MB (interaction p = .074). Additionally, for warfarin vs. LMWH, two significant interactions were observed between treatment and VTE risk level (interaction p = .005) and metastatic diagnosis (interaction p = .002) for recurrent VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

Across these high-risk subgroups of VTE cancer patients, treatment outcomes associated with apixaban were generally positive compared to LMWH and warfarin.

Current Recommendations for the Management of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of death in oncological patients. The mechanisms of thrombogenesis in cancer patients are not fully established, and it seems to be multifactorial in origin. Also, several risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are present in these patients such as tumor site, stage, histology of cancer, chemotherapy, surgery, and immobilization. Anticoagulant treatment in CAT is challenging because of high bleeding risk during treatment and recurrence of VTE. Current major guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for early and long-term treatment of VTE in cancer patients. In the past years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as potential treatment option for VTE and have recently been proposed as a new option for treating CAT. This manuscript will give a short overview of risk factors involved in the development of CAT and a summary on the recent recommendations and guidelines for treatment of VTE in patients with malignancies, discussing also some special clinical situations (e.g. renal impairment, catheter-related thrombosis, and thrombocytopenia).

Pandemic Perspective: Commonalities Between COVID-19 and Cardio-Oncology

Overlapping commonalities between coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and cardio-oncology regarding cardiovascular toxicities (CVT), pathophysiology, and pharmacology are special topics emerging during the pandemic. In this perspective, we consider an array of CVT common to both COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including cardiomyopathy, ischemia, conduction abnormalities, myopericarditis, and right ventricular (RV) failure. We also emphasize the higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or its risk factors or cancer. We explore commonalities in the underlying pathophysiology observed in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including inflammation, cytokine release, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system, coagulopathy, microthrombosis, and endothelial dysfunction. In addition, we examine common pharmacologic management strategies that have been elucidated for CVT from COVID-19 and various cancer therapies. The use of corticosteroids, as well as antibodies and inhibitors of various molecules mediating inflammation and cytokine release syndrome, are discussed. The impact of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is also addressed, since these drugs are used in cardio-oncology and have received considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the culprit virus enters human cells via the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. There are therefore several areas of overlap, similarity, and interaction in the toxicity, pathophysiology, and pharmacology profiles in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology syndromes. Learning more about either will likely provide some level of insight into both. We discuss each of these topics in this viewpoint, as well as what we foresee as evolving future directions to consider in cardio-oncology during the pandemic and beyond. Finally, we highlight commonalities in health disparities in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology and encourage continued development and implementation of innovative solutions to improve equity in health and healing.

The current place of direct oral anticoagulants in the prevention/treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE; includes deep venous thrombosis, DVT, and pulmonary embolism, PE) represents the third most common acute cardiovascular syndrome. Contemporary VTE management comprises primary prevention in high-risk patients, treatment of established VTE, and prevention of its recurrence (secondary prevention). Anticoagulants are the basis of VTE pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment. For several decades, parenteral (heparin and low-molecular-weight heparins, LMWHs) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists, VKAs) have been the cornerstone of VTE prevention/treatment. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban) markedly improved the management of VTE by overcoming many disadvantages of conventional anticoagulants. For primary VTE prevention in patients after total hip/knee arthroplasty, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran are preferred over LMWHs, due to comparable efficacy and safety, but favourable acceptability (avoided everyday injections). In other high-risk populations (other surgical patients, acutely ill medical patients), LMWHs are still the recommended option. Betrixaban is currently the only DOAC approved for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients during and after hospitalization. For acute VTE treatment and secondary prevention, DOACs (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran) are recommended as the first-line therapy in the general population. DOACs proved to be similarly effective but safer than VKAs. In some specific populations, DOACs also seem to be advantageous over conventional treatment (patients with renal impairment, elderly, long-term secondary prevention in cancer patients). Currently, there is no data from randomized head-to-head comparative studies between the DOAC classes or representatives so the choice is made mainly according to patient characteristics and pharmacokinetic properties of the drug.

Venous thromboembolic complications in lymphoma patients

Lymphomas represent a heterogeneous group of malignant hematological diseases with high risk for development of venous thromboembolic complications (VTE). Consequently, VTE significantly impacts morbidity and mortality in these patients. Another concern is the financial burden of the healthcare system caused by diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The complex biology of lymphoma, in conjunction with patient and treatment related risk factors for the development of VTE, results in a procoagulant hemostatic dysregulation. Considering the incidence of VTE in patients with lymphoma, there is an emerging demand for both reliable risks assessment model (RAM) for prediction of VTE, as well as for effective VTE prophylaxis and treatment. The clinical course of patients with malignant diseases is accompanied by a wide range of potential treatment complications, making the task of prevention and treatment of VTE even more challenging. In recent years, great progress has been achieved in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of thrombotic complications, while the significant number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) have provided standards of prophylaxis and treatment of VTE complications in patients with malignancy. In comparison to previous recommendations and guidelines for CAT, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) has been gradually approaching low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in terms of efficacy and safety profile in these indications. This systematic review is focused on the latest pathophysiological advances, risk factors assessment, prophylactic and therapeutic recommendations and guidelines concerning VTE in patients with lymphoma.