Diagnostic criteria for Buerger's disease: International Consensus of VAS - European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine.

Buerger's disease (BD) remains a debilitating condition and early diagnosis is paramount for its effective management. Despite many published diagnostic criteria for BD, selective criteria have been utilized in different vascular centers to manage patients with BD worldwide. A recent international Delphi Consensus Study on the diagnostic criteria of BD showed that none of these published diagnostic criteria have been universally accepted as a gold standard. Apart from the presence of smoking, these published diagnostic criteria have distinct differences between them, rendering the direct comparison of patient outcomes difficult. Hence, the expert committees from the Working Group of the VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine critically reviewed the findings from the Delphi study and provided practical recommendations on the diagnostic criteria for BD, facilitating its universal use. We recommend that the 'definitive' diagnosis of BD must require the presence of three features (history of smoking, typical angiographic features and typical histopathological features) and the use of a combination of major and minor criteria for the 'suspected' diagnosis of BD. The major criterion is the history of active tobacco smoking. The five minor criteria are disease onset at age less than 45 years, ischemic involvement of the lower limbs, ischemic involvement of one or both of the upper limbs, thrombophlebitis migrans and red-blue shade of purple discoloration on edematous toes or fingers. We recommend that a 'suspected' diagnosis of BD is confirmed in the presence of a major criterion plus four or more minor criteria. In the absence of the major criterion or in cases of fewer than four minor criteria, imaging and laboratory data could facilitate the diagnosis. Validation studies on the use of these major and minor criteria are underway.

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations-State-of-the-Art.

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist.

An International Delphi Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria for Buerger's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Buerger's disease (BD) remains a debilitating condition. Despite multiple published diagnostic criteria for BD, none is universally accepted as a gold standard. METHODS: We conducted a 2-round modified Delphi consensus study to establish a consensus on the diagnostic. The questionnaire included statements from several commonly used diagnostic criteria for BD. Qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were performed. An agreement level of 70% was applied. RESULTS: Twenty nine experts from 18 countries participated in this study. Overall, 75 statements were circulated in Round 1. Of these, 28% of statements were accepted. Following comments, 21 statements were recirculated in Round 2 and 90% were accepted. Although more than 90% of the experts did not agree that the diagnosis of BD can be based only on clinical manifestation, none of the nonclinical manifestations of BD were agreed as a part of the diagnostic criteria. There was an agreement that a history of tobacco consumption in any form, not necessarily confined to the current use, should be a part of the diagnostic criteria of BD. The history of thrombophlebitis migrans, even if not present at presentation, was accepted as a clue for BD diagnosis. It was also agreed that discoloration of the toes or fingers could be included in the diagnostic criteria of BD. Experts agreed that histology results could differentiate BD from atherosclerosis obliterans and other types of vasculitis. The presence of corkscrew collaterals on imaging and burning pain reached the agreement at the first round but not at the second. There was no consensus regarding age cut-off, the requirement of normal lipid profile, and normal blood glucose for BD diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated discrepancies in the various published diagnostic criteria for BD and their selective utilization in routine clinical practice worldwide. We propose that all published diagnostic criteria for BD be re-evaluated for harmonization and universal use.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Need for an Integrated and Equitable Approach: An International Expert Consensus Paper.

BACKGROUND: One year after the declaration of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) and despite the implementation of mandatory physical barriers and social distancing, humanity remains challenged by a long-lasting and devastating public health crisis. MANAGEMENT: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are efficient mitigation strategies. The success of these NPIs is dependent on the approval and commitment of the population. The launch of a mass vaccination program in many countries in late December 2020 with mRNA vaccines, adenovirus-based vaccines, and inactivated virus vaccines has generated hope for the end of the pandemic. CURRENT ISSUES: The continuous appearance of new pathogenic viral strains and the ability of vaccines to prevent infection and transmission raise important concerns as we try to achieve community immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants. The need of a second and even third generation of vaccines has already been acknowledged by the WHO and governments. PERSPECTIVES: There is a critical and urgent need for a balanced and integrated strategy for the management of the COVID-19 outbreaks organized on three axes: (1) Prevention of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) Detection and early diagnosis of patients at risk of disease worsening, and (3) Anticipation of medical care (PDA). CONCLUSION: The "PDA strategy" integrated into state policy for the support and expansion of health systems and introduction of digital organizations (i.e., telemedicine, e-Health, artificial intelligence, and machine-learning technology) is of major importance for the preservation of citizens' health and life world-wide.

Prioritization of treatments for lower extremity peripheral artery disease in low- and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is increasing in prevalence in low- and middle-income countries creating a large health care burden. Clinical management may require substantial resources but little consideration has been given to which treatments are appropriate for less advantaged countries. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The aim of this review was to systematically appraise published data on the costs and effectiveness of PAD treatments used commonly in high-income countries, and for an international consensus panel to review that information and propose a hierarchy of treatments relevant to low- and middle-income countries. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Pharmacotherapy for intermittent claudication was found to be expensive and improve walking distance by a modest amount. Exercise and endovascular therapies were more effective and exercise the most cost-effective. For critical limb ischemia, bypass surgery and endovascular therapy, which are both resource intensive, resulted in similar rates of amputation-free survival. Substantial reductions in cardiovascular events occurred with use of low cost drugs (statins, ACE inhibitors, anti-platelets) and smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, in low- and middle-income countries, cardiovascular prevention is a top priority, whereas a lower priority should be given to pharmacotherapy for leg symptoms and revascularisation, except in countries with established vascular units.