Clinical pearls: Laboratory assessments of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS)

The 2023 WSES guidelines on the management of trauma in elderly and frail patients

BACKGROUND

The trauma mortality rate is higher in the elderly compared with younger patients. Ageing is associated with physiological changes in multiple systems and correlated with frailty. Frailty is a risk factor for mortality in elderly trauma patients. We aim to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of geriatric trauma patients to improve it and reduce futile procedures.

METHODS

Six working groups of expert acute care and trauma surgeons reviewed extensively the literature according to the topic and the PICO question assigned. Statements and recommendations were assessed according to the GRADE methodology and approved by a consensus of experts in the field at the 10th international congress of the WSES in 2023.

RESULTS

The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage, including drug history, frailty assessment, nutritional status, and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Acute trauma pain in the elderly has to be managed in a multimodal analgesic approach, to avoid side effects of opioid use. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended in penetrating (abdominal, thoracic) trauma, in severely burned and in open fractures elderly patients to decrease septic complications. Antibiotics are not recommended in blunt trauma in the absence of signs of sepsis and septic shock. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with LMWH or UFH should be administrated as soon as possible in high and moderate-risk elderly trauma patients according to the renal function, weight of the patient and bleeding risk. A palliative care team should be involved as soon as possible to discuss the end of life in a multidisciplinary approach considering the patient's directives, family feelings and representatives' desires, and all decisions should be shared.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage based on assessing frailty and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Geriatric Intensive Care Units are needed to care for elderly and frail trauma patients in a multidisciplinary approach to decrease mortality and improve outcomes.

The myths behind DOAC measurement: Analyses of prescribing information from different regulatory bodies and a call for harmonization

For more than a decade, US laboratories have failed to implement solutions to help their clinicians in managing complex situations or patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The problem may find different origins, among which is the position of the Food and Drug Administration, which categorized these drugs as monitoring- and measurement-free, whereas other regulatory bodies like the European Medicines Agency or the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia were more conservative on the principle that the absence of proof (of monitoring/measurement benefits) is not proof of an absence (of monitoring/measurement needs). Pivotal clinical studies that led to the approval of DOACs were presented as devoid of such testing, although some companies considered monitoring as a solution to improve their benefit/risk ratio. In this JTH In Clinics issue, we report more than a decade of development that has permitted the activation of smart laboratory solutions to qualify or quantify DOACs and discuss myths and misconceptions around technical and regulatory requirements that support the current reluctance of implementing these technologies in most US laboratories. Use of DOACs is ever expanding, with DOAC prescriptions now exceeding those of other anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists, in some geographies. As this use increases, the likely need to measure DOAC exposure will also increase. Measurement of DOACs does not represent any technical difficulty. That these laboratory tests are not available in some locations suggests disparities in patient care, and we suggest it is time to address such inequalities.

Comparison of analytical performances between clot waveform analysis and FibWave in edoxaban-treated patients and healthy controls

Introduction

The activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and the prothrombin time (PT) are widely available coagulation parameters which are however poor predictors of the anticoagulant effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Some coagulometers use the clot waveform analysis (CWA) to assess the clotting time but mainly based on a unique parameter. The improvement of these methodologies and the evaluation of the other waveform parameters may increase the sensitivity to DOACs.

Objectives

To assess the performance of an improved clot waveform an method (i.e. FibWave) to detect the impact of edoxaban on the coagulation and the fibrinolytic systems.

Methods

Seventy-one samples from patients treated with edoxaban collected at minimum concentration (CTROUGH) and/or maximum concentration (CMAX), and 45 control samples were included. The aPTT- and PT-based CWA as well as the FibIn, FibEx, and FibLysis methodologies of the FibWave were implemented and performed on an ACL-TOP 700.

Results

PT and FibEx clotting time were strongly correlated to edoxaban concentration (Pearson r = 0.80 and 0.89, respectively). The FibEx clotting time allowed a better discrimination for samples with 30 and 50 ng/ml of edoxaban compared to PT (cutoffs of 96.5 and 114.2 s for the FibEx versus a unique cutoff of 13.1 s for the PT). The fibrinolytic process was impaired in the presence of edoxaban in a dose-dependent manner.

Conclusion

FibEx is more sensitive than aPTT- and PT-based CWA for the detection of the clinically relevant anticoagulant level of edoxaban.

Review of coagulation preanalytical variables with update on the effect of direct oral anticoagulants

There are many preanalytical variables (PAV) that are known to affect coagulation testing. The more commonly acknowledged PAV addressed by the clinical laboratory tend to start with their influence on blood collection, but realistically coagulation PAV starts with the patient, where the laboratory has less influence or control. Patient selection and appropriate timing for blood collection may be integral for assuring proper diagnosis and management. Laboratory control and assurance for ideal phlebotomy practice would mitigate most PAVs related to blood collection to minimize suboptimal sample collection. Laboratory oversight of sample transportation, processing and storage will assure sample integrity until testing can be facilitated. The purpose of this document is to review common PAV that should be taken into consideration when ordering, performing and interpreting a coagulation test result, with additional attention to the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

Comprehensive review of the impact of direct oral anticoagulants on thrombophilia diagnostic tests: Practical recommendations for the laboratory

There is a laboratory and clinical need to know the impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on diagnostic tests to avoid misinterpretation of results. Although the regulatory labelling documents provide some information about the influences of each DOAC on diagnostic tests, these are usually limited to some of the most common tests and no head to head comparison is available. In this paper, we report the impact of DOACs on several thrombophilia tests, including assessment of antithrombin, protein S and protein C activity assays, detection of activated protein C resistance and assays used for lupus anticoagulant. Results are compared and discussed with data obtained from literature. The final goal of this comprehensive review is to provide practical recommendations for laboratories to avoid misdiagnosis due to oral direct factor Xa (FXa) or IIa (FIIa) inhibitors. Overall, oral direct FXa (apixaban, betrixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) and FIIa (dabigatran) antagonists may affect clot-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests resulting in false-positive or false-negative results. An effect on FIIa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests is observed with dabigatran but not with anti-FXa DOACs and conversely for FXa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests. No impact was observed with antigenic/chromogenic methods for the assessment of protein S and C activity. In conclusion, interpretation of thrombophilia diagnostic tests results should be done with caution in patients on DOACs. The use of a device/chemical compound able to remove or antagonize the effect of DOACs or the development of new diagnostic tests insensitive to DOACs should be considered to minimize the risk of false results.

Laboratory testing in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a practical guide for clinicians

Click to hear Dr Baglin's perspective on the role of the laboratory in treatment with new oral anticoagulants SUMMARY: One of the key benefits of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is that they do not require routine laboratory monitoring. Nevertheless, assessment of DOAC exposure and anticoagulant effects may become useful in various clinical scenarios. The five approved DOACs (apixaban, betrixaban, dabigatran etexilate, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) have different characteristics impacting assay selection and the interpretation of results. This article provides an updated overview on (i) which test to use (and their advantages and limitations), (ii) when to assay DOAC levels, (iii) how to interpret the results relating to bleeding risk, emergency situations and perioperative management, and (iv) what is the impact of DOACs on routine and specialized coagulation assays. Assays for anti-Xa or anti-IIa activity are the preferred methods when quantitative information is useful, although the situations in which to test for DOAC levels are still debated. Different reagent sensitivities and variabilities in laboratory calibrations impact assay results. International calibration standards for all specific tests for each DOAC are needed to reduce the inter-laboratory variability and allow inter-study comparisons. The impact of the DOACs on hemostasis testing may cause false-positive or false-negative results; however, these can be minimized by using specific assays and collecting blood samples at trough concentrations. Finally, prospective clinical trials are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of proposed laboratory thresholds in relation to clinical decisions. We offer recommendations on the tests to use for measuring DOACs and practical guidance on laboratory testing to help patient management and avoid diagnostic errors.