Direct factor Xa inhibitors and the risk of cancer and cancer mortality: A Danish population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical animal studies have suggested that myeloid cell-synthesized coagulation factor X dampens antitumor immunity and that rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, can be used to promote tumor immunity. This study was aimed at assessing whether patients with atrial fibrillation taking direct factor Xa inhibitors have lower risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality than patients taking the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This nationwide population-based cohort study in Denmark included adult patients with atrial fibrillation and without a history of cancer, who started taking a factor Xa inhibitor or dabigatran between 2011 and 2015. Data on medical history, outcomes, and drug use were acquired through Danish healthcare registries. The primary outcome was any cancer. Secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality and all-cause mortality. Outcome events were assessed during 5 years of follow-up in an intention-to-treat analysis. The propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compute cumulative incidence and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with death as a competing event. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression and including in the model sex, age group at index date, comorbidities, and use of comedications. A total of 11,742 patients with atrial fibrillation starting a factor Xa inhibitor and 11,970 patients starting dabigatran were included. Mean age was 75.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.2) in the factor Xa cohort and 71.7 years (SD 11.1) in the dabigatran cohort. On the basis of the propensity score-weighted models, after 5 years of follow-up, no substantial difference in the cumulative incidence of cancer was observed between the factor Xa inhibitor (2,157/23,711; 9.11%, 95% CI [8.61%,9.63%]) and dabigatran (2,294/23,715; 9.68%, 95% CI [9.14%,10.25%]) groups (SHR 0.94, 95% CI [0.89,1.00], P value 0.0357). We observed no difference in cancer-related mortality (factor Xa inhibitors cohort 1,028/23,711; 4.33%, 95% CI [4.02%,4.68%]. Dabigatran cohort 1,001/23,715; 4.22%, 95% CI [3.83%,4.66%]; SHR 1.03, 95% CI [0.94,1.12]), but all-cause mortality was higher in the factor Xa inhibitor cohort (factor Xa inhibitors cohort 7,416/23,711; 31.31%, 95% CI [30.37%,32.29%]. Dabigatran cohort 6,531/23,715; 27.56%, 95% CI [26.69%,28.45%]; HR 1.17, 95% CI [1.13,1.21]). The main limitations of the study were the possibility of residual confounding and the short follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this population based cohort study, factor Xa inhibitor use was not associated with an overall lower incidence of cancer or cancer-related mortality when compared to dabigatran. We did observe an increase in all-cause mortality in the factor Xa inhibitor cohort.

The Incidence of Pulmonary Embolism in Hospitalized Non-ICU Patients with COVID-19 during the First Wave: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: During the first COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 in the Netherlands, the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) appeared to be high in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This study was performed to evaluate the incidence of PE during hospital stay in COVID-19 patients not admitted to the ICU. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 8 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients admitted between February 27, 2020, and July 31, 2020, were included. Data extracted comprised clinical characteristics, medication use, first onset of COVID-19-related symptoms, admission date due to COVID-19, and date of PE diagnosis. Only polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients were included. All PEs were diagnosed with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). RESULTS: Data from 1,852 patients who were admitted to the hospital ward were collected. Forty patients (2.2%) were diagnosed with PE within 28 days following hospital admission. The median time to PE since admission was 4.5 days (IQR 0.0-9.0). In all 40 patients, PE was diagnosed within the first 2 weeks after hospital admission and for 22 (55%) patients within 2 weeks after onset of symptoms. Patient characteristics, pre-existing comorbidities, anticoagulant use, and laboratory parameters at admission were not related to the development of PE. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study of 1,852 COVID-19 patients only admitted to the non-ICU wards, the incidence of CTPA-confirmed PE was 2.2% during the first 4 weeks after onset of symptoms and occurred exclusively within 2 weeks after hospital admission.

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. RESULTS: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.

Reversal agents for current and forthcoming direct oral anticoagulants.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a shift from vitamin K antagonists to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which include the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. Although DOACs are associated with less serious bleeding than vitamin K antagonists, bleeding still occurs with DOACs, particularly in the elderly and in those with comorbidities. Reversal of the anticoagulant effects of the DOACs may be needed in patients with serious bleeding and in those requiring urgent surgery or intervention. Reversal can be effected with specific agents, such as idarucizumab for dabigatran and andexanet alfa for apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, or with non-specific agents, such as prothrombin complex concentrates, activated prothrombin complex concentrate, and recombinant activated factor VII. This paper (i) provides an update on when and how to reverse the DOACs, (ii) describes new reversal agents under development, and (iii) provides a strategic framework for the reversal of the factor XI inhibitors currently under investigation in phase three clinical trials.

Diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prediction model based on a patient data meta-analysis.

AIMS: Risk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that provides an individualized, accurate probability estimate for the presence of acute PE in patients with suspected disease based on readily available clinical items and D-dimer concentrations. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed based on sixteen cross-sectional or prospective studies with data from 28 305 adult patients with clinically suspected PE from various clinical settings, including primary care, emergency care, hospitalized and nursing home patients. A multilevel logistic regression model was built and validated including ten a priori defined objective candidate predictors to predict objectively confirmed PE at baseline or venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up of 30 to 90 days. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Backward elimination was performed with a P-value <0.10. Discrimination (c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals [CI] and prediction intervals [PI]) and calibration (outcome:expected [O:E] ratio and calibration plot) were evaluated based on internal-external cross-validation. The accuracy of the model was subsequently compared with algorithms based on the Wells score and D-dimer testing. The final model included age (in years), sex, previous VTE, recent surgery or immobilization, haemoptysis, cancer, clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, inpatient status, D-dimer (in µg/L), and an interaction term between age and D-dimer. The pooled c-statistic was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89; 95% PI, 0.77-0.93) and overall calibration was very good (pooled O:E ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14; 95% PI, 0.55-1.79). The model slightly overestimated VTE probability in the lower range of estimated probabilities. Discrimination of the current model in the validation data sets was better than that of the Wells score combined with a D-dimer threshold based on age (c-statistic 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.75) or structured clinical pretest probability (c-statistic 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81). CONCLUSION: The present model provides an absolute, individualized probability of PE presence in a broad population of patients with suspected PE, with very good discrimination and calibration. Its clinical utility needs to be evaluated in a prospective management or impact study. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID 89366.

Intermediate-dose versus low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism (Highlow study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and thromboprophylaxis is indicated in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism. The optimal dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and the post-partum period is uncertain. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial (Highlow), pregnant women with a history of venous thromboembolism were recruited from 70 hospitals in nine countries (the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the USA, and Russia). Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older with a history of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism, and with a gestational age of 14 weeks or less. Eligible women were randomly assigned (1:1), before 14 weeks of gestational age, using a web-based system and permuted block randomisation (block size of six), stratified by centre, to either weight-adjusted intermediate-dose or fixed low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin subcutaneously once daily until 6 weeks post partum. The primary efficacy outcome was objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (ie, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or unusual site venous thrombosis), as determined by an independent central adjudication committee, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all women randomly assigned to treatment). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding which included antepartum, early post-partum (within 24 h after delivery), and late post-partum major bleeding (24 h or longer after delivery until 6 weeks post partum), assessed in all women who received at least one dose of assigned treatment and had a known end of treatment date. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01828697, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2013, and Oct 31, 2020, 1339 pregnant women were screened for eligibility, of whom 1110 were randomly assigned to weight-adjusted intermediate-dose (n=555) or fixed low-dose (n=555) low-molecular-weight heparin (ITT population). Venous thromboembolism occurred in 11 (2%) of 555 women in the weight-adjusted intermediate-dose group and in 16 (3%) of 555 in the fixed low-dose group (relative risk [RR] 0·69 [95% CI 0·32-1·47]; p=0·33). Venous thromboembolism occurred antepartum in five (1%) women in the intermediate-dose group and in five (1%) women in the low-dose group, and post partum in six (1%) women and 11 (2%) women. On-treatment major bleeding in the safety population (N=1045) occurred in 23 (4%) of 520 women in the intermediate-dose group and in 20 (4%) of 525 in the low-dose group (RR 1·16 [95% CI 0·65-2·09]). INTERPRETATION: In women with a history of venous thromboembolism, weight-adjusted intermediate-dose low-molecular-weight heparin during the combined antepartum and post-partum periods was not associated with a lower risk of recurrence than fixed low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin. These results indicate that low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy is the appropriate dose for the prevention of pregnancy-related recurrent venous thromboembolism. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health, Health Research Board Ireland, GSK/Aspen, and Pfizer.

Safety and Efficiency of Diagnostic Strategies for Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups : A Systematic Review and Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds, as well as the YEARS algorithm, for ruling out acute PE in these subgroups. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE from 1 January 1995 until 1 January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: 16 studies assessing at least 1 diagnostic strategy. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual-patient data from 20 553 patients. DATA SYNTHESIS: Safety was defined as the diagnostic failure rate (the predicted 3-month VTE incidence after exclusion of PE without imaging at baseline). Efficiency was defined as the proportion of individuals classified by the strategy as "PE considered excluded" without imaging tests. Across all strategies, efficiency was highest in patients younger than 40 years (47% to 68%) and lowest in patients aged 80 years or older (6.0% to 23%) or patients with cancer (9.6% to 26%). However, efficiency improved considerably in these subgroups when pretest probability-dependent D-dimer thresholds were applied. Predicted failure rates were highest for strategies with adapted D-dimer thresholds, with failure rates varying between 2% and 4% in the predefined patient subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Between-study differences in scoring predictor items and D-dimer assays, as well as the presence of differential verification bias, in particular for classifying fatal events and subsegmental PE cases, all of which may have led to an overestimation of the predicted failure rates of adapted D-dimer thresholds. CONCLUSION: Overall, all strategies showed acceptable safety, with pretest probability-dependent D-dimer thresholds having not only the highest efficiency but also the highest predicted failure rate. From an efficiency perspective, this individual-patient data meta-analysis supports application of adapted D-dimer thresholds. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Dutch Research Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018089366).

Optimal follow-up after acute pulmonary embolism: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function, in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology, endorsed by the European Respiratory Society.

This position paper provides a comprehensive guide for optimal follow-up of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), covering multiple relevant aspects of patient counselling. It serves as a practical guide to treating patients with acute PE complementary to the formal 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines developed with the European Respiratory Society. We propose a holistic approach considering the whole spectrum of serious adverse events that patients with acute PE may encounter on the short and long run. We underline the relevance of assessment of modifiable risk factors for bleeding, of acquired thrombophilia and limited cancer screening (unprovoked PE) as well as a dedicated surveillance for the potential development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension as part of routine practice; routine testing for genetic thrombophilia should be avoided. We advocate the use of outcome measures for functional outcome and quality of life to quantify the impact of the PE diagnosis and identify patients with the post-PE syndrome early. Counselling patients on maintaining a healthy lifestyle mitigates the risk of the post-PE syndrome and improves cardiovascular prognosis. Therefore, we consider it important to discuss when and how to resume sporting activities soon after diagnosing PE. Additional patient-relevant topics that require Focused counselling are travel and birth control.

Ruling out pulmonary embolism across different healthcare settings: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The challenging clinical dilemma of detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in suspected patients is encountered in a variety of healthcare settings. We hypothesized that the optimal diagnostic approach to detect these patients in terms of safety and efficiency depends on underlying PE prevalence, case mix, and physician experience, overall reflected by the type of setting where patients are initially assessed. The objective of this study was to assess the capability of ruling out PE by available diagnostic strategies across all possible settings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a literature search (MEDLINE) followed by an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA; 23 studies), including patients from self-referral emergency care (n = 12,612), primary healthcare clinics (n = 3,174), referred secondary care (n = 17,052), and hospitalized or nursing home patients (n = 2,410). Multilevel logistic regression was performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of the Wells and revised Geneva rules, both using fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds to age or pretest probability (PTP), for the YEARS algorithm and for the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC). All strategies were tested separately in each healthcare setting. Following studies done in this field, the primary diagnostic metrices estimated from the models were the "failure rate" of each strategy-i.e., the proportion of missed PE among patients categorized as "PE excluded" and "efficiency"-defined as the proportion of patients categorized as "PE excluded" among all patients. In self-referral emergency care, the PERC algorithm excludes PE in 21% of suspected patients at a failure rate of 1.12% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.70), whereas this increases to 6.01% (4.09 to 8.75) in referred patients to secondary care at an efficiency of 10%. In patients from primary healthcare and those referred to secondary care, strategies adjusting D-dimer to PTP are the most efficient (range: 43% to 62%) at a failure rate ranging between 0.25% and 3.06%, with higher failure rates observed in patients referred to secondary care. For this latter setting, strategies adjusting D-dimer to age are associated with a lower failure rate ranging between 0.65% and 0.81%, yet are also less efficient (range: 33% and 35%). For all strategies, failure rates are highest in hospitalized or nursing home patients, ranging between 1.68% and 5.13%, at an efficiency ranging between 15% and 30%. The main limitation of the primary analyses was that the diagnostic performance of each strategy was compared in different sets of studies since the availability of items used in each diagnostic strategy differed across included studies; however, sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: The capability of safely and efficiently ruling out PE of available diagnostic strategies differs for different healthcare settings. The findings of this IPD MA help in determining the optimum diagnostic strategies for ruling out PE per healthcare setting, balancing the trade-off between failure rate and efficiency of each strategy.

Direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55-3.35) and CRNMB (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.73-3.64) were nonsignificantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients with cancer and acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding.

Edoxaban for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin is the standard treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The role of treatment with direct oral anticoagulant agents is unclear. METHODS: In this open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with cancer who had acute symptomatic or incidental venous thromboembolism to receive either low-molecular-weight heparin for at least 5 days followed by oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily (edoxaban group) or subcutaneous dalteparin at a dose of 200 IU per kilogram of body weight once daily for 1 month followed by dalteparin at a dose of 150 IU per kilogram once daily (dalteparin group). Treatment was given for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization, regardless of treatment duration. RESULTS: Of the 1050 patients who underwent randomization, 1046 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A primary-outcome event occurred in 67 of the 522 patients (12.8%) in the edoxaban group as compared with 71 of the 524 patients (13.5%) in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.36; P=0.006 for noninferiority; P=0.87 for superiority). Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 41 patients (7.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 59 patients (11.3%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, -3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.0 to 0.2). Major bleeding occurred in 36 patients (6.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 21 patients (4.0%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.6). CONCLUSIONS: Oral edoxaban was noninferior to subcutaneous dalteparin with respect to the composite outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding. The rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism was lower but the rate of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with dalteparin. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; Hokusai VTE Cancer ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02073682 .).

Routine screening for pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients at the emergency department: impact of D-dimer testing followed by CTPA.

COVID-19 patients have increased risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), but symptoms of both conditions overlap. Because screening algorithms for PE in COVID-19 patients are currently lacking, PE might be underdiagnosed. We evaluated a screening algorithm in which all patients presenting to the ED with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 routinely undergo D-dimer testing, followed by CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) if D-dimer is ≥ 1.00 mg/L. Consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED of two university hospitals in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, between 01-10-2020 and 31-12-2020, who had a final diagnosis of COVID-19, were retrospectively included. D-dimer and CTPA results were obtained. Of 541 patients with a final diagnosis of COVID-19 presenting to the ED, 25 (4.6%) were excluded because D-dimer was missing, and 71 (13.1%) because they used anticoagulation therapy. Of 445 included patients, 185 (41.6%; 95%CI 37.0-46.3) had a D-dimer ≥ 1.00 mg/L. CTPA was performed in 169 of them, which showed PE in 26 (15.4%; 95%CI 10.3-21.7), resulting in an overall detection rate of 5.8% (95%CI 3.9-8.4) in the complete study group. In patients with and without PE at CTPA, median D-dimer was 9.84 (IQR 3.90-29.38) and 1.64 (IQR 1.17-3.01), respectively (p < 0.001). PE prevalence increased with increasing D-dimer, ranging from 1.2% (95%CI 0.0-6.4) if D-dimer was 1.00-1.99 mg/L, to 48.6% (95%CI 31.4-66.0) if D-dimer was ≥ 5.00 mg/L. In conclusion, by applying this screening algorithm, PE was identified in a considerable proportion of COVID-19 patients. Prospective management studies should assess if this algorithm safely rules-out PE if D-dimer is < 1.00 mg/L.

Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Thromboembolic Complications in COVID-19: Report of the National Institute for Public Health of the Netherlands.

A potential link between mortality, d-dimer values, and a prothrombotic syndrome has been reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The National Institute for Public Health of the Netherlands asked a group of radiology and vascular medicine experts to provide guidance for the imaging work-up and treatment of these important complications. This report summarizes evidence for thromboembolic disease, potential diagnostic and preventive actions, and recommendations for prophylaxis and treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Clinical implications of incidental venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: In cancer patients, current guidance suggests similar treatment for incidental and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), mainly based on retrospective data. We aimed to evaluate anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients with incidental and symptomatic VTE. METHODS: The Hokusai VTE Cancer Study was a randomised controlled trial comparing edoxaban with dalteparin for cancer-associated VTE. The primary outcome was the composite of first recurrent VTE or major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, recurrent VTE and mortality. Outcomes in patients with incidental and symptomatic VTE were evaluated during the 12-month study period. RESULTS: 331 patients with incidental VTE and 679 patients with symptomatic VTE were enrolled, of whom the index event was confirmed by an independent radiologist. Median durations of anticoagulant treatment were 195 and 189 days, respectively. In patients with incidental VTE, the primary outcome occurred in 12.7% of patients, major bleeding in 6.6% of patients and recurrent VTE in 7.9% of patients. Out of the 26 VTE recurrences in patients with incidental VTE, five (31%) were incidental, seven (44%) were symptomatic and four (25%) were deaths for which pulmonary embolism could not be ruled out. In patients with symptomatic VTE, the primary outcome occurred in 13.8% of patients, major bleeding in 4.9% of patients and recurrent VTE in 10.9% of patients. All-cause mortality was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical adverse outcomes are substantial in both cancer patients with incidental and symptomatic VTE, supporting current guideline recommendations that suggest treating incidental VTE in the same manner as symptomatic VTE.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95%CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95%CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95%CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95%CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group.

Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients.

The long-term performance of prediction scores for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients has been poorly investigated. We evaluated the discriminatory performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores for the first 3-6 months and for 12 months, and re-assessed scores after 3-6 months to determine the influence of variations in patients' risk classification on performance. Retrospective cohort of ambulatory patients with active cancer who were scheduled to receive first or new line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was symptomatic or incidental VTE. A total of 776 patients were included of whom 540 (70%) had distant metastases. The time-dependent c-statistics of Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores at 6 months were 0.61 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.66), 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.66), and 0.59 (0.52 to 0.66), respectively, with a tendency to decrease during follow-up. None of the scores discriminated between high and low risk patients at the conventional 3-point positivity threshold. The use of a 2-point positivity threshold improved performance of all scores and captured a higher proportion of VTE. The accuracy of risk scores re-assessed at 3-6 months was modest. The Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores are not sufficiently accurate when used at a conventional threshold of 3 points. Performance improves at positivity threshold of 2 points, as evaluated in recent randomized studies on VTE prophylaxis. Score accuracy tends to decrease over time suggesting the need of periodic re-evaluation to estimate possible variation of risk.

Screening for Occult Cancer in Patients With Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data.

BACKGROUND: Screening for cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) often is considered, but clinicians need precise data on cancer prevalence, risk factors, and the effect of different types of screening strategies. PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE, including in subgroups of different ages or those that have had different types of screening. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 19 January 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies evaluating cancer screening strategies in adults with unprovoked VTE that began enrolling patients after 1 January 2000 and had at least 12 months of follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and independently assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 10 eligible studies were identified. Individual data were obtained for all 2316 patients. Mean age was 60 years; 58% of patients received extensive screening. The 12-month period prevalence of cancer after VTE diagnosis was 5.2% (95% CI, 4.1% to 6.5%). The point prevalence of cancer was higher in patients who had extensive screening than in those who had more limited screening initially (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 [CI, 1.2 to 3.4]) but not at 12 months (OR, 1.4 [CI, 0.89 to 2.1]). Cancer prevalence increased linearly with age and was 7-fold higher in patients aged 50 years or older than in younger patients (OR, 7.1 [CI, 3.1 to 16]). LIMITATION: Variation in patient characteristics and extensive screening strategies; unavailability of long-term mortality data. CONCLUSION: Occult cancer is detected in 1 in 20 patients within a year of receiving a diagnosis of unprovoked VTE. Older age is associated with a higher cancer prevalence. Although an extensive screening strategy initially may detect more cancer cases than limited screening, whether this translates into improved patient outcomes remains unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033371).

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively referred to as venous thromboembolism, constitute a major global burden of disease. The diagnostic work-up of suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism includes the sequential application of a clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing. Imaging and anticoagulation can be safely withheld in patients who are unlikely to have venous thromboembolism and have a normal D-dimer. All other patients should undergo ultrasonography in case of suspected deep vein thrombosis and CT in case of suspected pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulants are first-line treatment options for venous thromboembolism because they are associated with a lower risk of bleeding than vitamin K antagonists and are easier to use. Use of thrombolysis should be limited to pulmonary embolism associated with haemodynamic instability. Anticoagulant treatment should be continued for at least 3 months to prevent early recurrences. When venous thromboembolism is unprovoked or secondary to persistent risk factors, extended treatment beyond this period should be considered when the risk of recurrence outweighs the risk of major bleeding.

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

BACKGROUND: We wished to assess the frequency of overinterpretation in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched through PubMed from December 2015 to January 2016. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in English were included if they reported one or more metaanalyses of accuracy estimates. We built and piloted a list of 10 items that represent actual overinterpretation in the abstract and/or full-text conclusion, and a list of 9 items that represent potential overinterpretation. Two investigators independently used the items to score each included systematic review, with disagreements resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We included 112 systematic reviews. The majority had a positive conclusion regarding the accuracy or clinical usefulness of the investigated test in the abstract (n = 83; 74%) and full-text (n = 83; 74%). Of the 112 reviews, 81 (72%) contained at least 1 actual form of overinterpretation in the abstract, and 77 (69%) in the full-text. This was most often a "positive conclusion, not reflecting the reported summary accuracy estimates," in 55 (49%) abstracts and 56 (50%) full-texts and a "positive conclusion, not taking high risk of bias and/or applicability concerns into account," in 47 abstracts (42%) and 26 full-texts (23%). Of these 112 reviews, 107 (96%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation, most frequently "nonrecommended statistical methods for metaanalysis performed" (n = 57; 51%). CONCLUSIONS: Most recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies present positive conclusions and a majority contain a form of overinterpretation. This may lead to unjustified optimism about test performance and erroneous clinical decisions and recommendations.