Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To conduct an update of the ASCO venous thromboembolism (VTE) guideline. METHODS: After publication of potentially practice-changing clinical trials, identified through ASCO's signals approach to updating, an updated systematic review was performed for two guideline questions: perioperative thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between November 1, 2018, and June 6, 2022. RESULTS: Five RCTs provided information that contributed to changes to the 2019 recommendations. Two RCTs addressed direct factor Xa inhibitors (either rivaroxaban or apixaban) for extended thromboprophylaxis after surgery. Each of these postoperative trials had important limitations but suggested that these two oral anticoagulants are safe and effective in the settings studied. An additional three RCTs addressed apixaban in the setting of VTE treatment. Apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, with a low risk of major bleeding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Apixaban and rivaroxaban were added as options for extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery, with a weak strength of recommendation. Apixaban was also added as an option for the treatment of VTE, with high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome.

Rivaroxaban is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. We tested the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in high-risk patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. This is a randomized open-label multicenter noninferiority study with blinded end point adjudication. Rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg once daily based on kidney function) was compared with warfarin (international normalized ratio target 2.5) for the prevention of thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and vascular death in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Only high-risk patients triple positive for lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin, and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibodies of the same isotype (triple positivity) were included in the study. The trial was terminated prematurely after the enrollment of 120 patients (59 randomized to rivaroxaban and 61 to warfarin) because of an excess of events among patients in the rivaroxaban arm. Mean follow-up was 569 days. There were 11 (19%) events in the rivaroxaban group, and 2 (3%) events in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic events occurred in 7 (12%) patients randomized to rivaroxaban (4 ischemic stroke and 3 myocardial infarction), whereas no event was recorded in those randomized to warfarin. Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients: 4 (7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 2 (3%) in the warfarin group. No death was reported. The use of rivaroxaban in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome was associated with an increased rate of events compared with warfarin, thus showing no benefit and excess risk. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02157272.

Managing reversal of direct oral anticoagulants in emergency situations. Anticoagulation Education Task Force White Paper.

Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the mechanisms by which anticoagulants confer therapeutic benefit also increase the risk of bleeding. As such, reversal strategies are critical. Until recently, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban lacked a specific reversal agent. This report is based on findings from the Anticoagulation Education Task Force, which brought together patient groups and professionals representing different medical specialties with an interest in patient safety and expertise in AF, VTE, stroke, anticoagulation, and reversal agents, to discuss the current status of anticoagulation reversal and fundamental changes in management of bleeding associated with DOACs occasioned by the approval of idarucizumab, a specific reversal agent for dabigatran, as well as recent clinical data on specific reversal agents for factor Xa inhibitors. Recommendations are given for when there is a definite need for a reversal agent (e.g. in cases of life-threatening bleeding, bleeding into a closed space or organ, persistent bleeding despite local haemostatic measures, and need for urgent interventions and/or interventions that carry a high risk for bleeding), when reversal agents may be helpful, and when a reversal agent is generally not needed. Key stakeholders who require 24-7/around-the-clock access to these agents vary among hospitals; however, from a practical perspective the emergency department is recommended as an appropriate location for these agents. Clearly, the advent of new agents requires standardised protocols for treating bleeding on an institutional level.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in cancer: a consensus statement of major guidelines panels and call to action.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an increasingly frequent complication of cancer and its treatments, and is associated with worsened mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. DESIGN: The Italian Association of Medical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the French National Federation of the League of Centers Against Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have recently published guidelines regarding VTE in patients with cancer. This review, authored by a working group of members from these panels, focuses on the methodology and areas of consensus and disagreement in the various clinical guidelines as well as directions for future research. RESULTS: There is broad consensus regarding the importance of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer, including prolonged prophylaxis in high-risk surgical patients. Prophylaxis is not currently recommended for ambulatory patients with cancer (with exceptions) or for central venous catheters. All of the panels agree that low molecular weight heparins are preferred for the long-term treatment of VTE in cancer. Areas that warrant further research include the benefit of prophylaxis in the ambulatory setting, the risk/benefit ratio of prophylaxis for hospitalized patients with cancer, an understanding of incidental VTE, and the impact of anticoagulation on survival. CONCLUSION: We call for a sustained research effort to investigate the clinical issues identified here to reduce the burden of VTE and its consequences in patients with cancer.