Evaluating thromboprophylaxis in the sickle cell disease population: Navigating the evidence gap.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) arises from beta-globin gene mutations, with global estimates indicating around 500 000 affected neonates in 2021. In the United States, it is considered rare, impacting fewer than 200 000 individuals. The key pathogenic flaw lies in mutant haemoglobin S, prone to polymerization under low oxygen conditions, causing erythrocytes to adopt a sickled shape. This leads to complications like vascular occlusion, haemolytic anaemia, inflammation and organ damage. Beyond erythrocyte abnormalities however, there is a body of literature highlighting the hypercoagulable state that is likely a contributor to many of the complications we see in SCD. The persistent activation of the coagulation cascade results in thromboembolic events, notably venous thromboembolism (VTE) which is independently associated with increased mortality in both adults and children with SCD. While the increased risk of VTE in the SCD population seems well established, there is a lack of guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in this population. This Wider Perspective will describe the hypercoagulable state and increased thrombosis risk in the SCD population, as well as advocate for the development of evidence-based guidelines to aid in the prevention of VTE in SCD.

Recent advances in the discovery and development of drugs targeting the kallikrein-kinin system.

BACKGROUND: The kallikrein-kinin system is a key regulatory cascade involved in blood pressure maintenance, hemostasis, inflammation and renal function. Currently, approved drugs remain limited to the rare disease hereditary angioedema. However, growing interest in this system is indicated by an increasing number of promising drug candidates for further indications. METHODS: To provide an overview of current drug development, a two-stage literature search was conducted between March and December 2023 to identify drug candidates with targets in the kallikrein-kinin system. First, drug candidates were identified using PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov. Second, the latest publications/results for these compounds were searched in PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar. The findings were categorized by target, stage of development, and intended indication. RESULTS: The search identified 68 drugs, of which 10 are approved, 25 are in clinical development, and 33 in preclinical development. The three most studied indications included diabetic retinopathy, thromboprophylaxis and hereditary angioedema. The latter is still an indication for most of the drug candidates close to regulatory approval (3 out of 4). For the emerging indications, promising new drug candidates in clinical development are ixodes ricinus-contact phase inhibitor for thromboprophylaxis and RZ402 and THR-149 for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (all phase 2). CONCLUSION: The therapeutic impact of targeting the kallikrein-kinin system is no longer limited to the treatment of hereditary angioedema. Ongoing research on other diseases demonstrates the potential of therapeutic interventions targeting the kallikrein-kinin system and will provide further treatment options for patients in the future.

Extended thromboprophylaxis in heart failure patients; the unmet need.

Heart failure (HF) is considered one of a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. The association between HF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported in several studies owing to many physiological and thromboembolic risk factors. Thus, the need for extended thromboprophylaxis during the post-discharge period in HF patients has been evaluated. Most guidelines do not recommend extended thromboprophylaxis because of its uncertain benefits and increased risk of bleeding. However, recent evidence in HF patients revealed no increased risk of bleeding with extended thromboprophylaxis, which highlights the importance of identifying ideal candidates who might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis. Several risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to identify patients at a high risk of VTE who would benefit from in-hospital and post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation therapy based on the risk-benefit principle. However, their accuracy in predicting VTE is questionable, and none have a standardized approach for evaluating the risk of VTE in HF patients. In this review, we provided an overview of the incidence and pathophysiology of VTE in HF patients, a summary of guideline recommendations for VTE prevention, and a summary of studies evaluating the use of extended thromboprophylaxis, with a focus on subgroup or post-hoc analyses of HF patients. We also discussed the need to design an ideal RAM that can identify candidate patients for extended thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the risk of VTE and identifying the key risk factors for bleeding in medically ill patients, including those with HF.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Disease burden and initiation of ambulatory thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory thromboprophylaxis (AT) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) reduces venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk and is recommended for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. We evaluated VTE rates, severity, timing, and risk factors in PAC patients as well as AT rates and initiation times. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PAC were included. Data collected included patient demographics, medical history, PAC diagnosis, development of VTE, AT, and bleeding episodes. VTE was defined as a DVT or a PE. Patients were classified as receiving AT for VTE prevention if they received a prescription for outpatient anticoagulation. RESULTS: The cohort included 243 PAC patients. VTE occurred in 24 %. Overall, 52 % developing VTE were hospitalized and 5 % died as a result of the VTE. Of those who developed VTE 50 % were diagnosed within the first 2 months of PAC diagnosis. Univariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included an elevated Onkotev score, metastasis at diagnosis, male gender and not receiving AT. Multivariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included male gender (P = 0.014) and not receiving AT (P = 0.001). Overall, 30 % of patients received AT. The median time from diagnosis to initiation of AT was 43 days. Major bleeding occurred in 5.8 %. Patients receiving AT were not at a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (p = 0.5). Patients with intestinal tumor invasion were at significantly increased risk of major bleeding (P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: VTE risk is significant and morbid in PAC patients. AT rates are low, and initiation is often delayed. Therapeutic endoscopists diagnosing PAC may be helpful in AT initiation.

Thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: a case-based review with practical guidelines.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) poses a significant challenge in the context of multiple myeloma, with an incidence of up to 10% in newly diagnosed patients and varying frequency in the relapsed/refractory setting. Accurate VTE risk assessment and personalized thromboprophylaxis strategies are important parts of supportive care in myeloma. There are three validated risk assessment models for prediction of VTE risk in newly diagnosed myeloma-SAVED, IMPEDE-VTE, and PRISM. In this review, we delve into the practical applications of VTE risk prediction models in the context of current therapies. By emphasizing the necessity of a tailored approach, we underscore the importance of considering patient-specific, disease-specific, and treatment-specific risk factors in each clinical scenario, and using that data to complement the output from risk assessment models. We also provide a summary of currently available data on VTE thromboprophylaxis in myeloma, and highlight specific situations where direct oral anticoagulants should be strongly considered. Our objective is to fill the critical gaps in VTE prophylaxis and management through the analysis of specific patient cases and provide a practical overview for clinicians.

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.

Is pharmacologic venous Thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for endometrial Cancer? A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Given the low incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, coupled with the existing uncertainties within guidelines regarding pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this area, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive literature review. This review aims to evaluate the necessity of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in these patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to March 10, 2024. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 3931 endometrial cancer patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that within 30 days postoperatively, the incidence of VTE was 0.51% (5 out of 990) in the pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 0.70% (7 out of 995) in the mechanical prophylaxis group, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI 0.19-6.95), indicating no significant difference between the groups. Additionally, within the same timeframe, the incidence of VTE was 0.37% (4 out of 1083) in the extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group and 1.14% (4 out of 352) in the non-extended pharmacologic prophylaxis group, yielding an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.11-1.54), again showing no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that routine pharmacological VTE prophylaxis may not be imperative for endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, as mechanical prophylaxis alone seems to be efficacious. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that a subset of high-risk patients may derive benefit from pharmacological prophylaxis or even extended regimens. Nonetheless, the absence of a validated risk prediction model for identifying such patients underscores the need for further research in this area. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD 42024516595.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

Postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and complications in a US cohort.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism accounts for approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. National guidelines recommend postpartum risk stratification and pharmacologic prophylaxis in at-risk individuals. Knowledge on modern rates of postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and its associated risks is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the rate of, and factors associated with, initiation of postpartum pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, and to assess associated adverse outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort of individuals delivering on randomly selected days at 17 US hospitals (2019-2020). Medical records were reviewed by trained and certified personnel. Those with an antepartum diagnosis of venous thromboembolism, receiving antepartum anticoagulation, or known SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. The primary outcome was use of postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, surgical site infection, hospital readmission, and venous thromboembolism through 6 weeks postpartum. The rate of thromboprophylaxis administration was assessed by mode of delivery, institution, and continuance to the outpatient setting. Multivariable regression models were developed using k-fold cross-validation with stepwise backward elimination to evaluate factors associated with thromboprophylaxis administration. Univariable and multivariable logistic models with propensity score covariate adjustment were performed to assess the association between thromboprophylaxis administration and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Of 21,114 individuals in the analytical cohort, 11.9% (95% confidence interval, 11.4%-12.3%) received postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis; the frequency of receipt was 29.8% (95% confidence interval, 28.7%-30.9%) following cesarean and 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 3.2%-3.8%) following vaginal delivery. Institutional rates of prophylaxis varied from 0.21% to 34.8%. Most individuals (83.3%) received thromboprophylaxis only as inpatients. In adjusted analysis, cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 19.17; 95% confidence interval, 16.70-22.00), hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 15.70; 95% confidence interval, 4.35-56.65), and obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 3.45; 95% confidence interval, 3.02-3.95) were the strongest factors associated with thromboprophylaxis administration. Thromboprophylaxis administration was not associated with surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.6%; odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.74), bleeding complications (0.2% vs 0.1%; odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-6.80), or postpartum readmission (0.9% vs 0.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-2.81). The overall rate of venous thromboembolism was 0.06% (95% confidence interval, 0.03%-0.10%) and was higher in those receiving prophylaxis (0.2%) compared with those not receiving prophylaxis (0.04%). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 10 patients received postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this US cohort. Rates of prophylaxis varied widely by institution. Cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, and obesity were predominant factors associated with postpartum thromboprophylaxis administration.

National Analysis of Outcomes for Adult Trauma Patients With Isolated Severe Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury Following Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to evaluate the association of early versus late venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on in-hospital mortality among patients with severe blunt isolated traumatic brain injuries. METHODS: Data from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File for 2017-2021 were analyzed. The target population included adult trauma patients with severe isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI). VTE prophylaxis types (low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin) and their administration timing were analyzed in relation to in-hospital complications and mortality. RESULTS: The study comprised 3609 patients, predominantly Caucasian males, with an average age of 48.5 y. Early VTE prophylaxis recipients were younger (P < 0.01) and more likely to receive unfractionated heparin (P < 0.01). VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h was associated with a higher average injury severity score and longer intensive care unit stays (P < 0.01). Logistic regression revealed that VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h was associated with significant reduction of in-hospital mortality by 38% (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02). Additionally, low molecular weight heparin use was associated with decreased mortality odds by 30% (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.89, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h is associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with severe isolated blunt TBI, as opposed to VTE prophylaxis within 24 h. These findings suggest the need for timely and appropriate VTE prophylaxis in TBI care, highlighting the critical need for a comprehensive assessment and further research concerning the safety and effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in these patient populations.

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after surgical resection of primary lower extremity bone or soft-tissue sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) and wound complications is greater after sarcoma resection. We sought to identify differences in postoperative VTE and bleeding complications with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) following resection of lower extremity primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 2083 patients from the PearlDiver database who underwent resection of primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma of the lower extremity from January 2010 to October 2021 and prescribed LMWH or DOAC within 90-days postoperatively. The primary outcomes were comparison of postoperative incidence and odds of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and bleeding complications within 90-days following resection. RESULTS: Patients prescribed DOACs had a greater odds of DVT (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-2.41; p = 0.024) and PE (OR: 3.38; 95% CI: 1.96-5.86; p < 0.001) within 90-days following resection of bone sarcoma when compared with the LMWH cohort. Patients undergoing resection of soft tissue sarcomas also had greater odds DVT (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.09-2.49; p = 0.016) and PE (OR: 2.62; 95% CI: 1.52-4.54; p < 0.001) in the DOAC cohort. There was no difference in the odds of bleeding complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an increased incidence and odds of VTE, but not bleeding complications, when using DOACs versus LMWH after primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma resection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Persistent underuse of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for high-risk populations undergoing major abdominal cancer operations. Few studies have evaluated extended VTE prophylaxis in the Medicare population who are at higher risk due to age. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using a 20% random sample of Medicare claims, 2012-2017. Patients ≥65 years with an abdominal cancer undergoing resection were included. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving new extended VTE prophylaxis prescriptions at discharge. Secondary outcomes included postdischarge VTE and hemorrhagic events. RESULTS: The study included 72 983 patients with a mean age of 75. Overall, 8.9% of patients received extended VTE prophylaxis. This proportion increased (7.2% in 2012, 10.6% in 2017; p < 0.001). Incidence of postdischarge hemorrhagic events was 1.0% in patients receiving extended VTE prophylaxis and 0.8% in those who did not. The incidence of postdischarge VTE events was 5.2% in patients receiving extended VTE prophylaxis and 2.4% in those who did not. CONCLUSION: Adherence to guideline-recommended extended VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal cancer operations is low. The higher rate of VTE in the prophylaxis group may suggest we captured some therapeutic anticoagulation, which would mean the actual rate of thromboprophylaxis is lower than reported herein.

Factor XI/XIa inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of venous and arterial thromboembolism: A narrative review.

During the past decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have advanced and simplified the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there remains a high incidence of bleeds, which calls for agents that have a reduced risk of bleeding. Factor XI (FXI) deficiency is associated with lower rates of venous thrombosis and stroke compared to the general population with a lower risk of bleeding. In conjunction with this, phase 2 studies have demonstrated safety and the potential for reduced thrombotic events with FXI inhibitors as compared to currently available medications. The aim of this review is to summarize key data on the clinical pharmacology of FXI, the latest developments in clinical trials of FXI inhibitors, and to describe the efficacy and safety profiles of FXI inhibitors for the prevention of venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for extended thromboprophylaxis following major abdominal/pelvic cancer-related surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for extended thromboprophylaxis of abdominal/pelvic cancer-related postoperative thromboembolism (VTE) is unclear. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. LMWH in these patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of science through May 19th, 2023 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the outcomes with DOACs vs. LMWH for extended thromboprophylaxis among patients undergoing abdominal/pelvic cancer surgery. Primary efficacy outcome was clinical VTE, and safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding complications reported within the 30-day postoperative period. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023413175). RESULTS: We identified 5078 articles and selected 29 full-text articles for eligibility. A total of 9 studies (2 RCTs and 7 observational studies) encompassing 2651 patients were included for systematic review and 7 for meta-analysis. When compared with LMWH extended thromboprophylaxis, DOACs had a similar incidence of VTE (RR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.32-1.33], I2 = 0%), major bleeding (RR: 1.68 [95% CI: 0.36-7.9], I2 = 26%), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.39-1.19], I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis suggested no difference according to the study type (RCTs versus observational studies) regarding clinical VTE or major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.43 and Pinteraction = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that DOACs for extended thromboprophylaxis were an effective and safe alternative to LMWH after major abdominal/pelvic cancer-related surgery.

Thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Patients with COVID-19 develop an increased risk of thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19 is less well defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis among outpatients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 2023. The outcomes of interest were venous thromboembolic events including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, hospitalization, major bleeding events, and non-major bleeding events. We included 6 trials comprising 3352 patients. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had an approximately 70% reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.93]) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The risk of mortality (RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.77]), cardiovascular events (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.30 to 2.73]), and hospitalization (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.47]) were similar between the two groups. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had a higher risk of non-major bleeding (RR, 3.48 [95% CI, 1.72 to 7.05) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism but not mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalization among outpatients with COVID-19.

The association of tumor-expressed REG4, SPINK4 and alpha-1 antitrypsin with cancer-associated thrombosis in colorectal cancer.

Novel biomarkers are needed to improve current imperfect risk prediction models for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). We recently identified an RNA-sequencing profile that associates with CAT in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, with REG4, SPINK4, and SERPINA1 as the top-3 upregulated genes at mRNA level. In the current study, we investigated whether protein expression of REG4, SPINK4 and alpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT, encoded by SERPINA1) in the tumor associated with CAT in an independent cohort of CRC patients. From 418 patients with resected CRC, 18 patients who developed CAT were age, sex, and tumor stage-matched to 18 CRC patients without CAT. Protein expression was detected by immunohistochemical staining and scored blindly by assessing the H-score (percentage positive cells*scoring intensity). The association with CAT was assessed by means of logistic regression, using patients with an H-score below 33 as reference group. The odds ratios (ORs) for developing CAT for patients with A1AThigh, REG4high, SPINK4high tumors were 3.5 (95%CI 0.8-14.5), 2.0 (95%CI 0.5-7.6) and 2.0 (95%CI 0.5-7.4) when compared to A1ATlow, REG4low, SPINK4low, respectively. The OR was increased to 24.0 (95%CI 1.1-505.1) when two proteins were combined (A1AThigh/REG4high). This nested case-control study shows that combined protein expression of A1AT and REG4 associate with CAT in patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, REG4/A1AT are potential biomarkers to improve the identification of patients with CRC who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Haemostatic gene variations in cervical cancer-associated venous thrombosis: considerations for clinical strategies.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life-threatening haemostatic disease frequently diagnosed among the cancer population. The Khorana Score is currently the primal risk assessment model to stratify oncological patients according to their susceptibility to VTE, however, it displays a limited performance. Meanwhile, intensive research on VTE pathophysiology in the general population has uncovered a range of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the condition. Nonetheless, their predictive ability concerning cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is controversial. Cervical cancer (CC) patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy often experience VTE, which negatively affects their survival. Thus, aiming for an improvement in thromboprophylaxis, new thrombotic biomarkers, including SNPs, are currently under investigation. In this study, the predictive capability of haemostatic gene SNPs on CC-related VTE and their prognostic value regardless of VTE were explored. Six SNPs in haemostatic genes were evaluated. A total of 401 CC patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy were enrolled in a retrospective cohort study. The implications for the time to VTE occurrence and overall survival (OS) were assessed. CAT considerably impacted the CC patients' OS (log-rank test, P < 0.001). SERPINE1 rs2070682 (T > C) showed a significant association with the risk of CC-related VTE (CC/CT vs. TT, log-rank test, P = 0.002; C allele, Cox model, hazard ratio (HR) = 6.99 and P = 0.009), while F2 rs1799963 (G > A) demonstrated an important prognostic value regardless of VTE (AA/AG vs. GG, log-rank test, P = 0.020; A allele, Cox model, HR = 2.76 and P = 0.026). For the remaining SNPs, no significant associations were detected. The polymorphisms SERPINE1 rs2070682 and F2 rs1799963 could be valuable tools in clinical decision-making, aiding in thromboprophylaxis and CC management, respectively.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in pregnant patients with active malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer currently occurs in about 1 in 1000 pregnancies. Both active malignancy and pregnancy are individual risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The purpose of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate the rate of VTE in pregnant patients with active malignancy compared with pregnant patients without malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Embase, Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Database, and clinicaltrial.gov were search by a trained librarian from inception until June 2021, and limited to English and French language human studies using keywords related to pregnancy, neoplasm, and thrombosis. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245886). Title, abstract, and full-text review was performed using the Covidence data management system. Two authors reviewed the studies independently. Of the 3821 articles screened, seven cohort studies were included that reported VTE rate in patients with active malignancy in pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 5928 individuals had active malignancy and pregnancy. Active malignancy in pregnancy significantly increased the odds of a VTE (odds ratio [OR] 6.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-12.1). Specifically, patients with thyroid (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-6.3), cervix (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.4-18.0), or other gynecological (OR 10.6, 95% CI 4.4-25.8) cancers; Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR 8.7, 95% CI 3.3-23.4); or acute leukemia (OR 17.1, 95% CI 10.9-26.8) all had increased odds, whereas those with brain cancer (OR 6.1, 95% CI 0.4-98.2), breast cancer (OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.3-17.4), malignant melanoma (OR 5.5, 95% CI 0.3-88.1), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.8-12.9) malignancies did not have statistically significant increased odds for VTE. No studies reported whether prophylactic anticoagulation was used during pregnancy in this population; nor did they report timing in pregnancy of the VTE. The absolute risk for VTE in those with active malignancy was 0.9% compared with 0.2% in those without active malignancy in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy with active malignancy confers a significant increased risk for VTE compared with pregnancy alone. Given this finding, prophylactic anticoagulation during pregnancy and postpartum could be considered in this patient population. Data are underpowered to make firm recommendations per cancer type.

Thrombo-inflammatory response in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a single institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 causes acute inflammation, which is complicated by venous thromboembolism events (VTE). However, it is unclear if VTE risk has evolved over time since the COVID-19 outbreak. AIMS: To determine markers of thrombo-inflammation and rates of symptomatic VTE in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre, cohort study was performed by reviewing electronic medical records of consecutive patients admitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital between March 2020 and September 2021. This period included three waves of COVID-19 outbreaks in Australia with the ancestral, alpha and delta variants. Standard coagulation assays and inflammatory markers were recorded over 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were consecutively admitted during the study period. Activated partial thromboplastin time, neutrophil count and C-reactive protein (CRP) were significantly increased in patients hospitalised in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with non-ICU patients. The use of anti-inflammatory medication increased in 2021 compared with 2020. The mortality rate was 7.3% in our cohort. Ninety-four per cent of patients received anticoagulation with 6.3% of patients developing VTE. CONCLUSION: We observed lower rates of VTE compared to the internationally reported rate for the same period. We conclude that in the setting of controlled hospital admission rate and standard anticoagulation guidelines, COVID-19 resulted in similar thrombo-inflammatory response and VTE rates over the first 1.5 years of the pandemic.