Outcomes of Warfarin Home INR Monitoring vs Office-Based Monitoring: a Retrospective Claims-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Home INR testing (patient self-testing) is feasible and effective for warfarin patients but little is known about real-world differences in outcomes for patients using PST versus laboratory-based INR monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety/efficacy of patient self-testing of real-world warfarin therapy versus office/lab-based monitoring of therapy. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/EXPOSURE: A retrospective claims-based analysis of warfarin patients enrolled in the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare databases between January 1, 2013, and March 30, 2020. Stratification was based on INR testing method: patient self-testing versus testing at physicians' offices/local laboratory. The probability of adverse events in each cohort was determined after adjusting for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics using a repeated measures analysis. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of all adverse events: deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bleeding, and stroke. A secondary outcome of interest was emergency department visits. KEY RESULTS: A total of 37,837 patients were included in the analysis: 1592 patients in the patient self-testing group and 36,245 in the office-based therapy group. After adjusting for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, patients in the office-based group had statistically significantly higher rates of all adverse events (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=2.07, 95% CI [1.82, 2.36]), and specific adverse events including thromboembolism (IRR=4.38, 95% CI [3.29, 5.84]), major bleed (IRR=1.45, 95% CI [1.28, 1.64]), and stroke (IRR=1.30, 95% CI [1.05, 1.61]) than patients in the patient self-testing group. Office-based patients also had a statistically significant higher rate of emergency department visits than patient self-testing patients (IRR = 1.65, 95% CI [1.47, 1.84]). CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: This analysis of real-world claims data shows lower rates of stroke, thromboembolism, and major bleeding, as well as fewer emergency department visits, with patient self-testing compared to office-based/lab INR monitoring. Our finding that PST is safe and effective among current users suggests that more patients may benefit from its use.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Obese Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: Results of an Expert Consensus Panel.

In clinical practice, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used for venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention. A substantial proportion of patients with venous thromboembolism are also obese. International guidance published in 2016 stated that DOACs could be used in standard doses in patients with obesity up to a body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2, but should not be used in those with severe obesity (BMI >40 kg/m2) owing to limited supporting data at the time. Although updated guidance in 2021 removed this limitation, some health care providers still avoid DOACs even in patients with lower levels of obesity. Furthermore, there are still evidence gaps regarding treatment of severe obesity, the role of peak and trough DOAC levels in these patients, use of DOACs after bariatric surgery, and appropriateness of DOAC dose reduction in the setting of secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. This document describes proceedings and outcomes of a multidisciplinary panel convened to review these and other key issues regarding DOAC use for treatment or prevention of venous thromboembolism in individuals with obesity.

Appropriateness of Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis Prescribing Based on Padua Score Among Inpatient Veterans.

Background: Hospitalized patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). The Padua Prediction Score (PPS) was developed to help quantify the risk of VTE for hospitalized patients and guide prescribing of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. This study aims to assess whether PPS embedded within an admission order set was utilized appropriately to prescribe or withhold pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Methods: This single center, retrospective observational cohort study evaluated adult patients aged ≥ 18 years between June 2017 and June 2020. A random sample of 250 patient charts meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed to calculate PPSs, and clinician notes were reviewed for documentation as to whether thromboprophylaxis was given or withheld appropriately based on the PPS. A second cohort of patients admitted within the study period meeting inclusion criteria and readmitted for VTE within 45 days of discharge were evaluated to determine appropriateness of inpatient VTE thromboprophylaxis during index hospitalization based on the PPS. Results: Of the 250 patients examined, 118 (47.2%) had a PPS < 4 on admission. Of the 118 patients, 58 (49.2%) were inappropriately prescribed pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis administered within 24 hours of admission. The clinical rationale for giving thromboprophylaxis when not indicated was provided for only 2 (3.4%) of the 58 patients. Of the 132 patients with a PPS ≥ 4, 11 (8.3%) had thromboprophylaxis appropriately withheld and for 33 (25.0%) it was inappropriately withheld. A total of 88 (66.7%) patients received thromboprophylaxis as indicated by a PPS ≥ 4. Conclusions: Despite the inclusion of the PPS calculator in the facility's admission order set, this study showed pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was frequently inappropriately given or withheld. This suggests written protocols and order sets may not be solely sufficient to ensure appropriate VTE prophylaxis in actual practice. Incorporation of additional tools, such as dashboards and scorecards, should be explored.

Perioperative consultative hematology: can you clear my patient for a procedure?

Periprocedural management of antithrombotics is a common but challenging clinical scenario that renders patients vulnerable to potential adverse events such as bleeding and thrombosis. Over the past decade, periprocedural antithrombotic approaches have changed considerably with the advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as well as a paradigm shift away from bridging in many warfarin patients. Successfully navigating this high-risk period relies on a number of individualized patient assessments conducted within a framework of standardized, systematic approaches. It also requires a thorough understanding of antithrombotic pharmacokinetics, multidisciplinary coordination of care, and comprehensive patient education and empowerment. In this article, we provide clinicians with a practical, stepwise approach to periprocedural management of antithrombotic agents through case-based examples of relevant clinical scenarios.

Shifting the Paradigm: A Population Health Approach to the Management of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

Over the past decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have contributed to a major paradigm shift in thrombosis management, replacing vitamin K antagonists as the most commonly prescribed anticoagulants in many countries. While DOACs provide distinct advantages over warfarin (eg, convenience, simplicity, and safety), they are frequently associated with inappropriate prescribing and adverse events. These events have prompted regulatory agencies to mandate oversight, which individual institutions may find difficult to comply with given limited resources. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has leveraged technology to develop the DOAC Population Management Tool (PMT) to address these challenges. This tool has empowered VHA to update a 60-year standard of care from one-to-one provider-to-patient anticoagulation monitoring to a population-based management approach. The DOAC PMT allows for the oversight of all patients prescribed DOACs and leads to intervention only when clinically indicated. Using the DOAC PMT, facilities across VHA have maximized DOAC oversight while minimizing resource usage. Herein, we discuss how the DOAC PMT was conceived, developed, and implemented, along with the challenges encountered throughout the process. Additionally, we share the impact of the DOAC PMT across VHA, and the potential of this approach beyond anticoagulation and VHA.

COVID-19 and Venous Thromboembolism Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy has emerged as a hallmark issue of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Medical facilities are faced with the challenge of developing institutional thromboprophylaxis protocols; however, due to the novelty of the disease, there is a dearth of high-quality, prospective evidence for decision making. OBSERVATIONS: The US National Institutes of Health along with 4 leading societies in the fields of thrombosis and hemostasis have published guidance based on expert consensus that helps provide a framework for local policy development. While there is agreement in a few areas, there are notable and sometimes considerable differences in recommendations that facilities should discuss when developing local guidance. CONCLUSIONS: This document aims to streamline and simplify the available guidance so health care providers can readily identify consensus and divergence of COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis recommendations. Additionally, the authors provide and briefly highlight the COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis protocol of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System in Nashville and Murfreesboro to serve as an example of a guideline-directed approach for order-set development.