Avoiding the needle: A quality improvement program introducing apixaban for extended thromboprophylaxis after major gynecologic cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery at our centre are recommended up to 28 days of enoxaparin for extended post-operative thromboprophylaxis (EP). Baseline survey revealed 92% patient adherence, but highlighted negative effects on patient experience due to the injectable route of administration. We aimed to improve patient experience by reducing pain and bruising by 50%, increasing adherence by 5%, and reducing out-of-pocket cost after introducing apixaban as an oral alternative for EP. METHODS: In this interrupted time series quality improvement study, gynecologic cancer patients were offered a choice between apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneously once daily) at time of discharge. A multidisciplinary team informed project design, implementation, and evaluation. Process interventions included standardized orders, patient and care team education programs. Telephone survey at 1 and 6 weeks and chart audit informed outcome, process, and balancing measures. RESULTS: From August to October 2022, 127 consecutive patients were included. Apixaban was chosen by 84%. Survey response rate was 74%. Patients who chose apixaban reported significantly reduced pain, bruising, increased confidence with administration, and less negative impact of the medication (p < 0.0001 for all). Adherence was unchanged (92%). The proportion of patients paying less than $125 (apixaban cost threshold) increased from 45% to 91%. There was no difference in bleeding and no VTE events. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of apixaban for EP was associated with significant improvement in patient-reported quality measures and reduced financial toxicity with no effect on adherence or balancing measures. Apixaban is the preferred anticoagulant for EP at our centre.

Comparison of rivaroxaban and low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a Swedish national population-based register study.

BACKGROUND: Treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) with anticoagulation prevents recurrent venous thromboembolism (rVTE), but increases bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES: To compare incidence of rVTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality for rivaroxaban versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with CAT. METHODS: We developed a cohort study using Swedish national registers 2013-2019. Patients with CAT (venous thromboembolism within 6 months of cancer diagnosis) were included. Those with other indications or with high bleeding risk cancers were excluded (according to guidelines). Follow-up was from index-CAT until outcome, death, emigration, or end of study. Incidence rates (IR) per 1000 person-years with 95% confidence interval (CI) and propensity score overlap-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) for rivaroxaban versus LMWH were estimated. RESULTS: We included 283 patients on rivaroxaban and 5181 on LMWH. The IR for rVTE was 68.7 (95% CI 40.0-109.9) for rivaroxaban, compared with 91.6 (95% CI 81.9-102.0) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.43-1.35). The IR for major bleeding was 23.5 (95% CI 8.6-51.1) for rivaroxaban versus 49.2 (95% CI 42.3-56.9) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.26-1.49). The IR for all-cause mortality was 146.8 (95% CI 103.9-201.5) for rivaroxaban and 565.6 (95% CI 541.8-590.2) for LMWH with adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.34-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban performed similarly to LMWH for patients with CAT for rVTE and major bleeding. An all-cause mortality benefit was observed for rivaroxaban which potentially may be attributed to residual confounding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05150938 (Registered 9 December 2021).

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Active Cancer Receiving Rivaroxaban or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin: The OSCAR-UK Study.

BACKGROUND: In most patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CT), essentially those not at high risk of bleeding, guidelines recommend treatment with direct oral anticoagulants as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Population-based studies comparing these therapies are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrences, significant bleeding, and all-cause mortality in patients with CT receiving rivaroxaban or LMWHs. PATIENTS/METHODS: Using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink data from 2013 to 2020, we generated a cohort of patients with first CT treated initially with either rivaroxaban or LMWH. Patients were observed 12 months for VTE recurrences, significant bleeds (major bleeds or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding requiring hospitalization), and all-cause mortality. Overlap weighted sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHRs) compared rivaroxaban with LMWH in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2,259 patients with first CT, 314 receiving rivaroxaban, and 1,945 LMWH, mean age 72.4 and 66.9 years, respectively. In the 12-month observational period, 184 person-years following rivaroxaban and 1,057 following LMWH, 10 and 66 incident recurrent VTE events, 20 and 102 significant bleeds, and 10 and 133 deaths were observed in rivaroxaban and LMWH users, respectively. The weighted SHR at 12 months for VTE recurrences in rivaroxaban compared with LMWH were 0.80 (0.37-1.73); for significant bleeds 1.01 (0.57-1.81); and for all-cause mortality 0.49 (0.23-1.06). CONCLUSION: Patients with CT, not at high risk of bleeding, treated with either rivaroxaban or LMWH have comparable effectiveness and safety outcomes. This supports the recommendation that rivaroxaban is a reasonable alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CT.

Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial Comparing Anticoagulation With Rivaroxaban to Standard-of-Care in Symptomatic Cerebral Venous Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that direct oral anticoagulants may be a suitable choice for anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). However, conducting high-quality trials in CVT is challenging as it is a rare disease with low rates of adverse outcomes such as major bleeding and functional dependence. To facilitate the design of future CVT trials, SECRET (Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis) assessed (1) the feasibility of recruitment, (2) the safety of rivaroxaban compared with standard-of-care anticoagulation, and (3) patient-centered functional outcomes. METHODS: This was a phase II, prospective, open-label blinded-end point 1:1 randomized trial conducted at 12 Canadian centers. Participants were aged ≥18 years, within 14 days of a new diagnosis of symptomatic CVT, and suitable for oral anticoagulation; they were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 20 mg daily, or standard-of-care anticoagulation (warfarin, target international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0, or low-molecular-weight heparin) for 180 days, with optional extension up to 365 days. Primary outcomes were annual rate of recruitment (feasibility); and a composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial hemorrhage, or mortality at 180 days (safety). Secondary outcomes included recurrent venous thromboembolism, recanalization, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and functional and patient-reported outcomes (modified Rankin Scale, quality of life, headache, mood, fatigue, and cognition) at days 180 and 365. RESULTS: Fifty-five participants were randomized. The rate of recruitment was 21.3 participants/year; 57% of eligible candidates consented. Median age was 48.0 years (interquartile range, 38.5-73.2); 66% were female. There was 1 primary event (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage), 2 clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events, and 1 recurrent CVT by day 180, all in the rivaroxaban group. All participants in both arms had at least partial recanalization by day 180. At enrollment, both groups on average reported reduced quality of life, low mood, fatigue, and headache with impaired cognitive performance. All metrics improved markedly by day 180. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment targets were reached, but many eligible participants declined randomization. There were numerically more bleeding events in patients taking rivaroxaban compared with control, but rates of bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were low overall and in keeping with previous studies. Participants had symptoms affecting their well-being at enrollment but improved over time. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03178864.

Cancer and the Risk of Perioperative Arterial Ischemic Events.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most cancer patients require surgery for diagnosis and treatment. This study evaluated whether cancer is a risk factor for perioperative arterial ischemic events. METHODS: The primary cohort included patients registered in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) between 2006-2016. The secondary cohort included Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) claims data from 11 U.S. states between 2016-2018. Study populations comprised patients who underwent inpatient (NSQIP, HCUP) or outpatient (NSQIP) surgery. Study exposures were disseminated cancer (NSQIP) and all cancers (HCUP). The primary outcome was a perioperative arterial ischemic event, defined as myocardial infarction or stroke diagnosed within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Among 5,609,675 NSQIP surgeries, 2.2% involved patients with disseminated cancer. The perioperative arterial ischemic event rate was 0.96% among patients with disseminated cancer versus 0.48% among patients without (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.90-2.13). In Cox analyses adjusting for demographics, functional status, comorbidities, surgical specialty, anesthesia type, and clinical factors, disseminated cancer remained associated with higher risk of perioperative arterial ischemic events (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.46). Among 1,341,658 surgical patients in the HCUP cohort, 11.8% had a diagnosis of cancer. A perioperative arterial ischemic event was diagnosed in 0.74% of patients with cancer versus 0.54% of patients without cancer (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.27-1.43). In Cox analyses adjusted for demographics, insurance, comorbidities, and surgery type, cancer remained associated with higher risk of perioperative arterial ischemic events (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer is an independent risk factor for perioperative arterial ischemic events.

Rivaroxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in a Broad Cohort of Patients With Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: An Analysis of the OSCAR-US Program.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants as alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in most patients. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus LMWH for a broad CAT cohort. The cohort study used electronic health data from January 2012 to December 2020 to evaluate patients with active cancer experiencing acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH. Propensity score-overlap weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for VTE, bleeding-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality were calculated. In total, 4935 patients were identified (27.9% on rivaroxaban and 72.1% on LMWH). The cancer types included gastrointestinal (29.4%), genitourinary (26.2%), lung (24.0%), breast (19.7%), and hematologic (14.4%). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in recurrent VTE versus LMWH among all patients with cancer (HR = 0.78; 95%CI = 0.61-0.99) at 3 months. No differences in bleeding-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality were observed. Directionally similar results to those at 3 months were observed at 6 months for all outcomes. In conclusion, we observed fewer recurrent VTE cases and no increase in bleeding-related hospitalizations with rivaroxaban versus LMWH at 3 months in this patient cohort with various cancer types.

Rivaroxaban versus Apixaban for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism in Patients at Lower Risk of Bleeding.

This retrospective study, utilizing U.S. electronic health record (EHR) data from January 2013 to December 2020, sought to assess whether rivaroxaban and apixaban had similar effectiveness and safety in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with a cancer type not associated with a high risk of bleeding. We included adults diagnosed with active cancer, excluding esophageal, gastric, unresected colorectal, bladder, noncerebral central nervous system cancers and leukemia, who experienced VTE and received a therapeutic VTE dose of rivaroxaban or apixaban on day 7 post-VTE, and were active in the EHR ≥12 months prior to the VTE. Primary outcome was the composite of recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included recurrent VTE, any bleed resulting in hospitalization, any critical organ bleed, and composites of these outcomes at 3 and 6 months. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 1,344 apixaban and 1,093 rivaroxaban patients. At 3 months, rivaroxaban was found to have similar hazard to apixaban for developing recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.27). No differences were observed between cohorts for this outcome at 6 months (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.71-1.40) or for any other outcome at 3 or 6 months. In conclusion, patients receiving rivaroxaban or apixaban showed similar risks of the composite of recurrent VTE or any bleed resulting in hospitalization in patients with cancer-associated VTE. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05461807. Key Points Rivaroxaban and apixaban have similar effectiveness and safety for treatment of cancer-associated VTE through 6 months.Clinicians should therefore consider patient preference and adherence when choosing the optimal anticoagulant.

Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

Background: Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are alternatives to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in most cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) patients. Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and LMWH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in patients with an active cancer type not associated with a high risk of DOAC bleeding. Methods: An analysis of electronic health records from January 2012 to December 2020 was performed. Patients were adults, had active cancer, experienced an index CAT event, and were treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH. Patients with cancers with an established high risk of bleeding on DOACs were excluded. Baseline covariates were balanced using propensity score-overlap weighting. HRs with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: We identified 3,708 CAT patients treated with rivaroxaban (29.5%) or LMWH (70.5%). The median (25th-75th percentiles) time on anticoagulation was 180 (69-365) and 96 (40-336) days for rivaroxaban and LMWH patients. At 3 months, rivaroxaban was associated with a 31% reduced risk of recurrent VTE vs LMWH (4.2% vs 6.1%; HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51-0.92). No difference in bleeding-related hospitalizations or all-cause mortality was observed (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.55-1.13 and HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85-1.35, respectively). Rivaroxaban reduced the recurrent VTE risk (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97) but not bleeding-related hospitalizations or all-cause mortality at 6 months. At 12 months, no difference was observed between cohorts for any of the previously mentioned outcomes. Conclusions: Among active cancer patients experiencing VTE and not at high risk of bleeding on DOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent VTE versus LMWHs at 3 and 6 months but not 12 months. (Observational Study in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis for Rivaroxaban-United States Cohort [OSCAR-US]; NCT04979780).

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To conduct an update of the ASCO venous thromboembolism (VTE) guideline. METHODS: After publication of potentially practice-changing clinical trials, identified through ASCO's signals approach to updating, an updated systematic review was performed for two guideline questions: perioperative thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between November 1, 2018, and June 6, 2022. RESULTS: Five RCTs provided information that contributed to changes to the 2019 recommendations. Two RCTs addressed direct factor Xa inhibitors (either rivaroxaban or apixaban) for extended thromboprophylaxis after surgery. Each of these postoperative trials had important limitations but suggested that these two oral anticoagulants are safe and effective in the settings studied. An additional three RCTs addressed apixaban in the setting of VTE treatment. Apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, with a low risk of major bleeding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Apixaban and rivaroxaban were added as options for extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery, with a weak strength of recommendation. Apixaban was also added as an option for the treatment of VTE, with high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Unanswered questions in cancer-associated thrombosis.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE comes with a heightened risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding that differs by choice of anticoagulant as well as by patient- and disease-specific risk factors. Available data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants are effective, continuing anticoagulation beyond six months is indicated in those with active cancer and that patients who develop 'breakthrough' thrombotic events can be effectively treated. We review the evidence that addresses these key clinical questions and offer pragmatic approaches in individualizing care. While significant investigative efforts over the past decade have made impactful advances, future research is needed to better define the factors that contribute to anticoagulant-related bleeding and VTE recurrence, in order to aid clinical decision-making that improves the care of patients with cancer-associated VTE.

Vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia without thrombosis may not require immune modulatory therapy: A case report.

Background: Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare complication of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccines. It presents most commonly with severe thrombocytopenia and thrombotic complications with extremely high D-dimer levels 5-30 days after vaccination. We report a patient who presented with mild thrombocytopenia and minimally elevated D-dimer levels without thrombosis, but who tested positive for antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4) platelet-activating antibodies on a PF4-enhanced serotonin-release assay. Key Clinical Question: Is immunomodulation necessary in patients who present without thrombosis? Clinical Approach and Conclusions: Treatment with rivaroxaban alone was followed by platelet normalization despite persistence of anti-PF4 antibodies. This case provides support that vaccination for COVID-19 can induce a broad, heterogeneous prothrombotic disorder characterized by anti-PF4 platelet-activating antibodies that shares features with classical heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and autoimmune HIT syndromes and that immunomodulation may not be required in those without thrombosis.

Reduced fixed dose tocilizumab 400 mg IV compared to weight-based dosing in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A before-after cohort study.

Background: Interleukin-6 inhibitors reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. British Columbia began using tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (maximum 800 mg) in January 2021 in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but due to drug shortages, decreased dosing to 400 mg IV fixed dose in April 2021. The aims of this study were twofold: to compare physiological responses and clinical outcomes of these two strategies, and examine the cost-effectiveness of treating all patients with 400 mg versus half the patients with 8 mg/kg and the other half without tocilizumab. Methods: This was a single-centre, before-after cohort study of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab, and a control cohort treated with dexamethasone only. Physiological responses and clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving both doses of tocilizumab and those receiving dexamethasone only. We built a decision tree model to examine cost-effectiveness. Findings: 152 patients were included; 40 received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg, 59 received 400 mg and 53 received dexamethasone only. Median CRP fell from 103 mg/L to 5.2 mg/L, 96 mg/L to 6.8 mg/L and from 81.3 mg/L to 48 mg/L in the 8 mg/kg, 400 mg tocilizumab, and dexamethasone only groups, respectively. 28-day mortality was 5% (n=2) vs 8% (n=5) vs 13% (n=7), with no significant difference in all pair-wise comparison. At an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 Canadian per life-year, utilizing 400 mg for all patients rather than 8 mg/kg for half the patients is cost-effective in 51.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Interpretation: Both doses of tocilizumab demonstrated comparable reduction of inflammation with similar 28-day mortality. Without consideration of equity, the net monetary benefits of providing 400 mg tocilizumab to all patients are comparable to 8 mg/kg to half the patients. In the context of ongoing drug shortages, fixed-dose 400 mg tocilizumab may be a practical, feasible and economical option. Funding: This work was supported by a gift donation from Hsu & Taylor Family to the VGH Foundation, and the Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholarship.

Clinical care pathway for the evaluation of patients with suspected VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare complication after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) adenoviral vector vaccination. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, a provincial clinical care pathway was developed to guide clinicians in evaluating for VITT among patients who present with thrombocytopenia or thrombosis symptoms within 4 to 28 days after adenoviral vector vaccine exposure. All patients had enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing for platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies, and all cases with positive PF4-ELISA or d-dimer levels ≥2.0 mg/L fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU) had further testing for platelet-activating PF4 antibodies using a modified serotonin release assay (SRA). Between 1 May and 30 June 2021, 37% of 68 patients investigated for VITT had thrombosis, but only 3 had VITT confirmed by PF4-ELISA and SRA. Platelet counts, d-dimer levels, and ELISA optical density values were significantly different between those with and without VITT. Three patients had thrombocytopenia and thrombosis with d-dimer levels >4.0 mg/L FEU but had negative PF4-ELISA and SRA results. Patients with VITT were treated successfully with IV immunoglobulin, nonheparin anticoagulants, and corticosteroids. Our pathway demonstrated that thrombosis is common among patients investigated for VITT and that PF4-ELISA testing is necessary to confirm VITT in those presenting with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial events) is highly consequential for patients with cancer and is associated with worsened survival. Despite substantial improvements in cancer treatment, the risk of VTE has increased in recent years; VTE rates additionally depend on the type of cancer (with pancreas, stomach and primary brain tumours having the highest risk) as well as on individual patient's and cancer treatment factors. Multiple cancer-specific mechanisms of VTE have been identified and can be classified as mechanisms in which the tumour expresses proteins that alter host systems, such as levels of platelets and leukocytes, and in which the tumour expresses procoagulant proteins released into the circulation that directly activate the coagulation cascade or platelets, such as tissue factor and podoplanin, respectively. As signs and symptoms of VTE may be non-specific, diagnosis requires clinical assessment, evaluation of pre-test probability, and objective diagnostic testing with ultrasonography or CT. Risk assessment tools have been validated to identify patients at risk of VTE. Primary prevention of VTE (thromboprophylaxis) has long been recommended in the inpatient and post-surgical settings, and is now an option in the outpatient setting for individuals with high-risk cancer. Anticoagulant therapy is the cornerstone of therapy, with low molecular weight heparin or newer options such as direct oral anticoagulants. Personalized treatment incorporating risk of bleeding and patient preferences is essential, especially as a diagnosis of VTE is often considered by patients even more distressing than their cancer diagnosis, and can severely affect the quality of life. Future research should focus on current knowledge gaps including optimizing risk assessment tools, biomarker discovery, next-generation anticoagulant development and implementation science.

How I treat and prevent venous thrombotic complications in patients with lymphoma.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication occurring in 5% to 10% of patients with lymphoma. As the complexity of lymphoma management has increased with novel therapies, so too has the treatment of VTE. Therapeutic options for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE have expanded from only warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) to include the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban. There have been no head-to-head trials comparing different DOACs in this setting, and randomized trials comparing a DOAC with LMWH dalteparin differ in trial design and results. Drug-drug interactions, drug-specific side effects, and patient selection are important considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy. In all patients, the relative risks of thrombosis and bleeding, the availability of the anticoagulant, and the life expectancy of the patient are vital elements in selecting the most appropriate anticoagulant (which can vary over time) for the individual patient. We describe the intricacies and challenges of treating thrombotic complications in patients with lymphoma with an emphasis on evidence and guideline-based care.

Treatment Algorithm in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Updated Canadian Expert Consensus.

Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) are at high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding complications. Risks vary significantly between individuals based on cancer status, treatment, and other characteristics. To facilitate the evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy in this patient population, a committee of 11 Canadian clinical experts updated a consensus-based algorithm for the acute and extended treatment of symptomatic and incidental CAT that was developed in 2018. Following a systematic review of the literature, updates to the algorithm were discussed during an online teleconference, and the algorithm was subsequently refined based on feedback from committee members. Clinicians using this treatment algorithm should consider bleeding risk, type of cancer, and drug-drug interactions, as well as patient and clinician preferences, in tailoring anticoagulation for patients with CAT. Anticoagulant therapy should be adapted as the patient's cancer status and management change over time.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.