Impact of anticoagulation therapy on outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis: A large-scale retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients presents a significant clinical challenge. This study aims to (1) explore the impact of anticoagulation therapy on patient outcomes; (2) comparative outcomes in portal vein thrombosis treated between direct oral anticoagulant and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We leveraged the TriNetX database to analyze a cohort comprising 4224 patients with liver cirrhosis and PVT who were treated with anticoagulation, alongside a comparison group of 15,300 patients with the same conditions but not receiving anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: The anticoagulated group showed a significant reduction in mortality (27.9 % vs. 34.2 %, HR = 0.723, 95 % CI: 0.678-0.770, P < 0.001). When comparing direct oral anticoagulant versus. VKA, in compensated liver cirrhosis, the direct oral anticoagulant group exhibited significantly lower mortality rates compared to VKA (17.7 % vs. 26.5 %, HR = 0.655, 95 % CI: 0.452-0.951, P = 0.025), with no significant difference in liver transplantation rates (4.0 % vs. 4.7 %, P = 0.080). In decompensated liver cirrhosis, the direct oral anticoagulant group exhibited lower mortality compared to the VKA group (23.6 % vs. 30.6 %, HR = 0.732, 95 % CI: 0.629-0.851, P < 0.001), and a higher frequency of liver transplantation was observed in the VKA group (10.6 % vs. 16.0 %, HR = 0.622, 95 % CI: 0.494-0.784, P < 0.001). Hospitalization rates were significantly lower in the direct oral anticoagulant group compared to the VKA group in decompensated cirrhosis (33.4 % vs. 38.3 %, HR = 0.830, 95 % CI: 0.695-0.992, P = 1.937). CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers compelling evidence supporting the use of anticoagulation therapy in liver cirrhosis with portal vein thrombosis. The use of DOACs in patients with both compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis showed a marked mortality benefit.

Retrospective chart review of GI bleeding in people with von Willebrand disease.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events (BEs) in von Willebrand disease (VWD) are difficult to diagnose and often recurrent. Limited data from clinical trials has led to lack of consensus on treatment options. AIM: Describe current treatments and outcomes for GI BEs in people with VWD. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, multicentre chart review study was conducted from January 2018 through December 2019 and included patients with inherited VWD with ≥1 GI BE in the preceding 5 years. Baseline characteristics, number and aetiology of BEs, associated GI-specific morbidities/lesions, treatment and outcomes were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Sixty bleeds were reported in 20 patients with type 1 (20%), type 2 (50%) and type 3 (30%) VWD. During the 5-year study period, 31 (52%) BEs had one identified or suspected cause; multiple causes were reported in 11 (18%). Most GI BEs (72%) were treated with a combination of von Willebrand factor (VWF), antifibrinolytics and/or other haemostatic or non-haemostatic treatments. Time to resolution did not differ by VWF treatment use; however, BEs treated with non-VWF treatments tended to resolve later. In patients with GI-specific morbidities/lesions, 84% resolved with first-line treatment; time to resolution tended to be longer than in patients without such morbidities/lesions. Thirteen BEs occurred in patients receiving prophylaxis and 47 in patients receiving on-demand treatment; 18 BEs resulted in a switch to prophylaxis after bleed resolution. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the unmet need for the management of recurrent GI BEs in people with VWD and the need for prospective data, especially on prophylaxis.

Standardization of definition and management for bleeding disorder of unknown cause: communication from the SSC of the ISTH.

In many patients referred with significant bleeding phenotype, laboratory testing fails to define any hemostatic abnormalities. Clinical practice with respect to diagnosis and management of this patient cohort poses significant clinical challenges. We recommend that bleeding history in these patients should be objectively assessed using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) bleeding assessment tool. Patients with increased bleeding assessment tool scores should progress to hemostasis laboratory testing. To diagnose bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), normal complete blood count, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, von Willebrand factor antigen, von Willebrand factor function, coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, and platelet light transmission aggregometry should be the minimum laboratory assessment. In some laboratories, additional specialized hemostasis testing may be performed to identify other rare causes of bleeding. We recommend that patients with a significant bleeding phenotype but normal laboratory investigations should be registered with a diagnosis of BDUC in preference to other terminology. Global hemostatic tests and markers of fibrinolysis demonstrate variable abnormalities, and their clinical significance remains uncertain. Targeted genomic sequencing examining candidate hemostatic genes has a low diagnostic yield. Underlying BDUC should be considered in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding since delays in diagnosis often extend to many years and negatively impact quality of life. Treatment options for BDUC patients include tranexamic acid, desmopressin, and platelet transfusions.

Advanced practice providers in hematology: actionable findings from national paired APP and physician surveys.

ABSTRACT: Advanced practice providers (APPs) are critical to the hematology workforce. However, there is limited knowledge about APPs in hematology regarding specialty-specific training, scope of practice, challenges and opportunities in APP-physician interactions, and involvement with the American Society of Hematology (ASH). We conducted APP and physician focus groups to elucidate major themes in these areas and used results to inform development of 2 national surveys, 1 for APPs and 1 for physicians who work with APPs. The APP survey was distributed to members of the Advanced Practitioner Society of Hematology and Oncology, and the physician survey was distributed to physician members of ASH. A total of 841 APPs and 1334 physicians completed the surveys. APPs reported most hematology-specific knowledge was obtained via on-the-job training and felt additional APP-focused training would be helpful (as did physicians). Nearly all APPs and physicians agreed that APPs were an integral part of their organizations and that physician-APP collaborations were generally positive. A total of 42.1% of APPs and 29.3% of physicians reported burnout, and >50% of physicians felt that working with APPs had reduced their burnout. Both physicians and APPs reported interest in additional resources including "best practice" guidelines for APP-physician collaboration, APP access to hematology educational resources (both existing and newly developed resources for physicians and trainees), and greater APP integration into national specialty-specific professional organizations including APP-focused sessions at conferences. Professional organizations such as ASH are well positioned to address these areas.

Observational cohort study of long-term outcomes of liver transplantation in haemophilia.

INTRODUCTION: Gene therapy is now a reality for individuals with haemophilia, yet little is known regarding the quality-of-life impact of factor correction. As few data exist, and recognizing the analogy to liver transplantation (OLTX), we identified OLTX+ and OLTX- men in the ATHNdataset to compare post-OLTX factor VIII and IX on quality of life (QoL) by Haem-A-QoL and PROMIS-29. METHODS: OLTX- were matched to OLTX+ by age, race, and haemophilia type and severity. Deidentified demographic data, including post-transplant factor levels, genotype and target joint disease were analysed by descriptive statistics. Haem-A-Qol and PROMIS-29 were compared in OLTX+ and OLTX- by student's t-test and univariate regression models. RESULTS: Of 86 people with haemophilia A (HA) or haemophilia B (HB) cared for at 10 haemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), 21 (24.4%) OLTX+ and 65 (75.6%) OLTX- were identified. OLTX+ and OLTX- had a similar frequency of target joint disease (p = .806), HA genotypes, null versus non-null (p = .696), and HIV infection (p = .316). At a median 9.2 years post-OLTX, median FVIII, .63 IU/mL [IQR 0.52-0.97] and FIX, .91 IU/mL [IQR .63-1.32], Haem-A-QoL, PROMIS-29, and HOT scores were comparable. Severe HA/HB had lower post-OLTX 'dealing with haemophilia' scores (p = .022) and higher 'sports and leisure' (p = .010) and 'view of yourself' scores (p = .024) than OLTX+ non-severe participants. Non-caucasian OLTX+ had significantly lower scores in sports and leisure (p = .042), future expectations (p = .021) and total score (p = .010). CONCLUSION: Nine years after OLTX, QoL is comparable to OLTX-, but significantly better in OLTX+ with severe than non-severe disease and in caucasians than non-caucasians.