Reducing unnecessary premedication prior to parenteral iron therapy: A quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron carries risks of mild, self-limiting, tryptase-negative Fishbane and complement activation-related pseudo-allergy reactions, with rare reports of anaphylaxis. Historically, high-molecular-weight iron dextran (HMWID) was associated with a higher incidence of anaphylaxis and empiric premedication with antihistamines/corticosteroids have been used to mitigate this risk. HMWID is no longer available and the risk of hypersensitivity reactions with newer IV iron formulations is low. Therefore, the use of routine prophylactic premedication in all patients is not justified but should be considered in high-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Our primary aim was to reduce inappropriate premedication before IV iron administration by 50% so that our institution's hematology providers only prescribe premedications to patients at high risk of having a severe reaction. Interventions included a multidisciplinary education initiative to highlight current evidence against universal administration of premedications and revision of the IV iron informed consent form and electronic order set. RESULTS: We measured the success of our intervention by comparing data collected during a 6-month pre-intervention period (837 infusions) to a 6-month post-intervention period (947 infusions). Inappropriate administration of premedications decreased from 79% in the pre-intervention period compared to 65% in the post-intervention period. We found no significant difference in the number of Fishbane reactions, severe reactions, and emergency room admissions, despite this reduction in premedication use. DISCUSSION: Although we did not reach our goal of a 50% reduction in inappropriate premedication use, opportunities for process improvements were uncovered and are being explored in the next cycle of this quality improvement project.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of recombinant porcine sequence factor VIII in acquired haemophilia A: A non-interventional, post-authorization safety study.

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant porcine factor VIII (rpFVIII, susoctocog alfa) is indicated for the treatment of bleeding episodes in adults with acquired haemophilia A (AHA). AIM: To provide long-term real-world safety and effectiveness data for rpFVIII in the management of AHA bleeding episodes. METHODS: US PASS (NCT02610127) was a multicentre, uncontrolled, open-label, post-marketing safety surveillance study conducted in adults with AHA. Data were collected retrospectively or prospectively for 180 days after rpFVIII treatment. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included haemostatic effectiveness of rpFVIII and rpFVIII utilization. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled from December 2015 to June 2019 (prospective, n = 30; retrospective, n = 23). Six patients experienced seven treatment-related SAEs (incidence 12.0%). The most common treatment-related SAE was FVIII inhibition (inhibiting antibodies to rpFVIII; incidence 8.0%, 95% CI: 2.2-19.2). Five patients reported seven thromboembolic events; one was an SAE and possibly related to rpFVIII. Of bleeding events treated with rpFVIII, 80.3% (57/71) of bleeds resolved with rpFVIII. The median (range) dose of rpFVIII per infusion was 50 (10-300) units/kg, with a median (range) of 6.0 (1-140) infusions and a median (range) time from bleed onset to bleed resolution of 14.0 (2.0-132.7) days. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study of rpFVIII for AHA, no new safety signals were identified compared with previous clinical trial findings. Eighty percent of bleeds resolved with rpFVIII treatment.

Long-term follow-up of patients with congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura receiving a plasma-derived factor VIII (Koate) that contains ADAMTS13.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura (hTTP) is an ultra-rare disorder resulting from an inherited deficiency of ADAMTS13, a von Willebrand factor (VWF)-cleaving metalloprotease. The plasma-derived factor VIII/VWF Koate (FVIII/VWFKoate ) has been shown to contain ADAMTS13, allowing for its use to treat hTTP at home by the patient/caregiver. AIM: Based on prior demonstration of safe and effective use of FVIII/VWFKoate in eight patients with hTTP, we conducted a retrospective study to gather additional data regarding the use of FVIII/VWFKoate for hTTP. METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective, noninterventional chart review of patients who had received FVIII/VWFKoate for the management of hTTP. Data collected included demographics, medical history, relevant family history, past use and tolerability of fresh frozen plasma, and details regarding FVIII/VWFKoate therapy. RESULTS: The cohort included 11 patients (seven males, four females) with hTTP, ranging in age at study entry from 2 to 28 years. The average duration of FVIII/VWFKoate therapy was 4.8 years (range, 0.5-6.5 years). Among nine patients using FVIII/VWFKoate as prophylaxis, the normalized annual rate of breakthrough TTP episodes ranged from 0.2 to 1.1 episodes/year. All nine patients who received FVIII/VWFKoate prophylaxis had thrombocytopenia recorded at baseline, while eight (88.9%) did not have thrombocytopenia after using FVIII/VWFKoate . There was one AE (unspecified) attributed to FVIII/VWFKoate . CONCLUSION: These data suggest that FVIII/VWFKoate is a safe and well-tolerated source of the missing ADAMTS13 enzyme in patients with hTTP, producing a marked reduction in thrombocytopenia prevalence, low frequency of TTP episodes, and with the added benefit of self- or caregiver-administration.

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

Thromboembolic prevention and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: updated clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Thromboembolism is a common and deadly consequence of COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients. Based on clinical evidence pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic and early observational reports, expert consensus and guidance documents have strongly encouraged the use of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. More recently, multiple clinical trials and larger observational studies have provided evidence for tailoring the approach to thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19. This document provides updated guidance for the use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19 from the Anticoagulation Forum, the leading North American organization of anticoagulation providers. We discuss ambulatory, in-hospital, and post-hospital thromboprophylaxis strategies as well as provide guidance for patients with thrombotic conditions who are considering COVID-19 vaccination.

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Interdisciplinary Consensus Statement on Neuraxial Procedures in Obstetric Patients With Thrombocytopenia.

Because up to 12% of obstetric patients meet criteria for the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy, it is not infrequent that the anesthesiologist must decide whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an affected patient. Given the potential morbidity associated with general anesthesia for cesarean delivery, thoughtful consideration of which patients with thrombocytopenia are likely to have an increased risk of spinal epidural hematoma with neuraxial procedures, and when these risks outweigh the relative benefits is important to consider and to inform shared decision making with patients. Because there are substantial risks associated with withholding a neuraxial analgesic/anesthetic procedure in obstetric patients, every effort should be made to perform a bleeding history assessment and determine the thrombocytopenia etiology before admission for delivery. Whereas multiple other professional societies (obstetric, interventional pain, and hematologic) have published guidelines addressing platelet thresholds for safe neuraxial procedures, the US anesthesia professional societies have been silent on this topic. Despite a paucity of high-quality data, there are now meta-analyses that provide better estimations of risks. An interdisciplinary taskforce was convened to unite the relevant professional societies, synthesize the data, and provide a practical decision algorithm to help inform risk-benefit discussions and shared decision making with patients. Through a systematic review and modified Delphi process, the taskforce concluded that the best available evidence indicates the risk of spinal epidural hematoma associated with a platelet count ≥70,000 × 106/L is likely to be very low in obstetric patients with thrombocytopenia secondary to gestational thrombocytopenia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the absence of other risk factors. Ultimately, the decision of whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an obstetric patient with thrombocytopenia occurs within a clinical context. Potentially relevant factors include, but are not limited to, patient comorbidities, obstetric risk factors, airway examination, available airway equipment, risk of general anesthesia, and patient preference.

Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with or at substantial risk of venous thromboembolic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel developed key questions to address in the guideline, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Evidence was graded based on a standard methodology, which was used to inform the development of recommendations. RESULTS: The systematic review identified a total of 34 studies that provided the evidence base for the guideline. The expert panel agreed on 18 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence on the use of IVC filters in patients with or at risk of venous thromboembolic disease varies in strength and quality, the panel provides recommendations for the use of IVC filters in a variety of clinical scenarios. Additional research is needed to optimize care for this patient population.

How I treat central venous access device-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Central venous access device (CVAD)-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication among patients requiring central venous access as part of their medical care. Complications of CRT include pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, loss of central venous access, and postthrombotic syndrome. Patient-, device-, and treatment-related factors can influence the risk of CRT. Despite numerous randomized controlled trials, the clinical benefit of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of CRT remains to be established. Therefore, minimizing patient exposure to known risk factors is the best available approach to prevent CRT. Venous duplex is recommended for the diagnosis of CRT. Anticoagulation for at least 3 months or the duration of the indwelling CVAD is recommended for treatment of CRT. Thrombolysis should be considered for patients at low risk for bleeding who have limb-threatening thrombosis or whose symptoms fail to resolve with adequate anticoagulation. CVAD removal should be consider for patients with bacteremia, persistent symptoms despite anticoagulation, and if the CVAD is no longer needed. Superior vena cava filters should be avoided. Prospective studies are needed to define the optimal management of patients with or at risk for CRT.

Etiology and Management of Upper-Extremity Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Cancer Patients.

Central venous access devices are a critical instrument in the treatment and supportive care delivery for oncology patients. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication of central venous access devices in oncology patients. Risk factors for CRT include patient-, device-, and treatment-related risk factors. Treatment of CRT is indicated to reduce symptoms, prevent catheter malfunction, prevent recurrent DVT or thromboembolic pulmonary embolism, and minimize the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Minimal prospective data exist on the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thromboses in cancer patients. As such recommendations largely are derived from data in the lower-extremity DVT and PE studies in cancer and non-cancer patients. Based on the available literature, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis against CRT is not recommended in cancer patients. Treatment options for CRT include catheter removal, anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or surgical thrombectomy. Current evidence-based guidelines recommend LMWH as the anticoagulant of choice. However, recent data showing efficacy and safety of DOACs in cancer-related VTE may be extrapolated to treatment of CRT in cancer patients. In patients with CRT, catheter removal should be pursued if continued vascular access is no longer needed, the catheter is dysfunctional, a catheter-associated infection is present, or if CRT symptoms do not resolve with anticoagulation alone. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is reserved for rare severe cases of CRT. Herein we discuss the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and general management of CRT in cancer patients.