Andexanet for Factor Xa Inhibitor-Associated Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage who are receiving factor Xa inhibitors have a risk of hematoma expansion. The effect of andexanet alfa, an agent that reverses the effects of factor Xa inhibitors, on hematoma volume expansion has not been well studied. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had taken factor Xa inhibitors within 15 hours before having an acute intracerebral hemorrhage to receive andexanet or usual care. The primary end point was hemostatic efficacy, defined by expansion of the hematoma volume by 35% or less at 12 hours after baseline, an increase in the score on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale of less than 7 points (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse neurologic deficit) at 12 hours, and no receipt of rescue therapy between 3 hours and 12 hours. Safety end points were thrombotic events and death. RESULTS: A total of 263 patients were assigned to receive andexanet, and 267 to receive usual care. Efficacy was assessed in an interim analysis that included 452 patients, and safety was analyzed in all 530 enrolled patients. Atrial fibrillation was the most common indication for factor Xa inhibitors. Of the patients receiving usual care, 85.5% received prothrombin complex concentrate. Hemostatic efficacy was achieved in 150 of 224 patients (67.0%) receiving andexanet and in 121 of 228 (53.1%) receiving usual care (adjusted difference, 13.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6 to 22.2; P = 0.003). The median reduction from baseline to the 1-to-2-hour nadir in anti-factor Xa activity was 94.5% with andexanet and 26.9% with usual care (P<0.001). Thrombotic events occurred in 27 of 263 patients (10.3%) receiving andexanet and in 15 of 267 (5.6%) receiving usual care (difference, 4.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 9.2; P = 0.048); ischemic stroke occurred in 17 patients (6.5%) and 4 patients (1.5%), respectively. There were no appreciable differences between the groups in the score on the modified Rankin scale or in death within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with intracerebral hemorrhage who were receiving factor Xa inhibitors, andexanet resulted in better control of hematoma expansion than usual care but was associated with thrombotic events, including ischemic stroke. (Funded by Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease and others; ANNEXA-I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03661528.).

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.

Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

Tailored anticoagulant treatment after a first venous thromboembolism: protocol of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study - cohort-based randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Recurrent VTE (rVTE) can be prevented by extended anticoagulant therapy, but this comes at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding. It is still uncertain whether patients with an intermediate recurrence risk or with a high recurrence and high bleeding risk will benefit from extended anticoagulant treatment, and whether a strategy where anticoagulant duration is tailored on the predicted risks of rVTE and bleeding can improve outcomes. The aim of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study is to evaluate the outcomes of tailored duration of long-term anticoagulant treatment based on individualised assessment of rVTE and major bleeding risks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The L-TRRiP study is a multicentre, open-label, cohort-based, randomised controlled trial, including patients with a first VTE. We classify the risk of rVTE and major bleeding using the L-TRRiP and VTE-BLEED scores, respectively. After 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, patients with a low rVTE risk will discontinue anticoagulant treatment, patients with a high rVTE and low bleeding risk will continue anticoagulant treatment, whereas all other patients will be randomised to continue or discontinue anticoagulant treatment. All patients will be followed up for at least 2 years. Inclusion will continue until the randomised group consists of 608 patients; we estimate to include 1600 patients in total. The primary outcome is the combined incidence of rVTE and major bleeding in the randomised group after 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of rVTE and major bleeding, functional outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in all patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft. Results are expected in 2028 and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and during (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06087952.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

VTE Risk Assessment and Prevention in Pregnancy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the leading cause of maternal mortality in pregnancy and the postpartum period. In addition to the higher pregnancy-associated baseline VTE risk, there are several well-established risk factors that can further increase the risk of VTE. At present, a thorough interrogation of these risk factors remains our only tool for estimating which pregnant people may be at an increased risk of VTE, and thus potentially benefit from thromboprophylaxis. However, an important knowledge gap still exists surrounding the duration of increased risk and the interaction of risk factors with each other. Furthermore, up to now, once significant risk has been established, prevention strategies have been largely based on expert opinion rather than high-quality data. Recent trials have successfully bridged a proportion of this knowledge gap; however, the challenge of conducting high-quality clinical trials with pregnant people remains. In this article, we provide an update on the recent evidence surrounding VTE risk factors in pregnancy while concurrently outlining knowledge gaps and current approaches to VTE prevention.

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Performance of the 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism: An external validation study.

BACKGROUND: The recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). AIM: To externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer <1000 µg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold. RESULTS: Of the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80-0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57-60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86-1.9). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study.

Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis - a protocol of an international phase IV study.

Introduction: Current guidelines recommend that patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) should be treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for 3-12 months. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), however, are increasingly used in clinical practice. An exploratory randomized controlled trial including 120 patients with CVT suggested that the efficacy and safety profile of dabigatran (a DOAC) is similar to VKAs for the treatment of CVT, but large-scale prospective studies from a real-world setting are lacking. Methods: DOAC-CVT is an international, prospective, observational cohort study comparing DOACs to VKAs for the prevention of recurrent venous thrombotic events after acute CVT. Patients are eligible if they are 18 years or older, have a radiologically confirmed CVT, and have started oral anticoagulant treatment (DOAC or VKA) within 30 days of CVT diagnosis. Patients with an absolute contra-indication for DOACs, such as pregnancy or severe renal insufficiency, are excluded from the study. We aim to recruit at least 500 patients within a three-year recruitment period. The primary endpoint is a composite of recurrent venous thrombosis and major bleeding at 6 months of follow-up. We will calculate an adjusted odds ratio for the primary endpoint using propensity score inverse probability treatment weighting. Discussion: DOAC-CVT will provide real-world data on the comparative efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs for the treatment of CVT. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04660747.

Prevalence and Predictors of Nonadherence to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Background For most patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists. However, there is concern that the lack of monitoring may impair therapy adherence and therefore the anticoagulant effect. Objective To assess 1-year DOAC nonadherence in patients with AF and a treatment indication of at least 1 year in the Dutch health care setting, and to identify predictors of nonadherence. Methods We performed a near-nationwide historical cohort study in patients with a novel DOAC indication for AF. Data were obtained from a pharmacy database, covering 65% of all outpatient prescriptions dispensed in the Netherlands. The 1-year nonadherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered; the threshold was set at <80%. Robust Poisson regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of nonadherence. Results A total of 46,211 patients were included and the 1-year nonadherence was 6.5%. We identified male sex (risk ratio [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.33), younger age (age ≥60 to <70 years: RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.33, age <60 years: RR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.92-2.57; reference age ≥85 years), a reduced DOAC dose (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.22), a twice-daily dosing regimen (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12-1.30), and treatment with apixaban (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06-1.26, reference rivaroxaban) or dabigatran (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14-1.37) as independent predictors of 1-year nonadherence. Conclusion One-year nonadherence to DOACs was low yet relevant in patients with AF newly prescribed a DOAC. Understanding the predictors for nonadherence may help identify patients at risk.

Sex differences in cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after adenoviral vaccination against COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (CVST-VITT) is a severe disease with high mortality. There are few data on sex differences in CVST-VITT. The aim of our study was to investigate the differences in presentation, treatment, clinical course, complications, and outcome of CVST-VITT between women and men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from an ongoing international registry on CVST-VITT. VITT was diagnosed according to the Pavord criteria. We compared the characteristics of CVST-VITT in women and men. RESULTS: Of 133 patients with possible, probable, or definite CVST-VITT, 102 (77%) were women. Women were slightly younger [median age 42 (IQR 28-54) vs 45 (28-56)], presented more often with coma (26% vs 10%) and had a lower platelet count at presentation [median (IQR) 50x109/L (28-79) vs 68 (30-125)] than men. The nadir platelet count was lower in women [median (IQR) 34 (19-62) vs 53 (20-92)]. More women received endovascular treatment than men (15% vs 6%). Rates of treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins were similar (63% vs 66%), as were new venous thromboembolic events (14% vs 14%) and major bleeding complications (30% vs 20%). Rates of good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2, 42% vs 45%) and in-hospital death (39% vs 41%) did not differ. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Three quarters of CVST-VITT patients in this study were women. Women were more severely affected at presentation, but clinical course and outcome did not differ between women and men. VITT-specific treatments were overall similar, but more women received endovascular treatment.

Heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia (ALIFE2): an international open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia. We aimed to assess use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus standard care in this population. METHODS: The ALIFE2 trial was an international open-label, randomised controlled trial undertaken in hospitals in the UK (n=26), the Netherlands (n=10), the USA (n=2), Belgium (n=1), and Slovenia (n=1). Women aged 18-42 years who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia, and who were trying to conceive or were already pregnant (≤7 weeks' gestation), were eligible for inclusion. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to use low-dose LMWH or not (alongside standard care in both groups) once they had a positive urine pregnancy test. LMWH was started at or before 7 weeks' gestation and continued until the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was livebirth rate, assessed in all women with available data. Safety outcomes included bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, and skin reactions, and were assessed in all randomly assigned women who reported a safety event. The trial was registered within the Dutch Trial Register (NTR3361) and EudraCT (UK: 2015-002357-35). FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2012, and Jan 30, 2021, 10 625 women were assessed for eligibility, 428 were registered, and 326 conceived and were randomly assigned (164 to LMWH and 162 to standard care). 116 (72%) of 162 women with primary outcome data in the LMWH group and 112 (71%) of 158 in the standard care group had livebirths (adjusted odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·78; absolute risk difference, 0·7%, 95% CI -9·2% to 10·6%). 39 (24%) of 164 women in the LMWH group and 37 (23%) of 162 women in the standard care group reported adverse events. INTERPRETATION: LMWH did not result in higher livebirth rates in women who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia. We do not advise use of LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia, and we advise against screening for inherited thrombophilia in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

American Society of Hematology 2023 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: thrombophilia testing.

Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia.

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss: an update in 2022.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the updates for the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature from 2017 to 2022? SUMMARY ANSWER: The guideline development group (GDG) updated 11 existing recommendations on investigations and treatments for RPL, and how care should be organized, and added one new recommendation on adenomyosis investigation in women with RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A previous ESHRE guideline on RPL was published in 2017 and needs to be updated. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The guideline was developed and updated according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. The literature searches were updated, and assessments of relevant new evidence were performed. Relevant papers published between 31 March 2017 and 28 February 2022 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate, and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were updated and discussed until consensus was reached within the GDG. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The new version of the guideline provides 39 recommendations on risk factors, prevention, and investigation in couples with RPL, and 38 recommendations on treatments. These includes 62 evidence-based recommendations-of which 33 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional-and 15 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 12 (19.4%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (34 recommendations; 54.8%), or very low-quality evidence (16 recommendations; 25.8%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions those investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guidelines have been updated; however, several investigations and treatments currently offered to couples with RPL have not been well studied; for most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against using the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best and most recent evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. Still, the absence of a unified definition of RPL is one of the most critical consequences of the limited scientific evidence in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment.O.B.C. reports being a member of the executive board of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology and has received payment for honoraria for giving lectures about RPL in Australia in 2020. M.G. reports unconditional research and educational grant received by the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. S.L. reports position funding from EXAMENLAB Ltd. and ownership interest by stock or partnership of EXAMENLAB Ltd (CEO). S.Q. reports being a deputy director of Tommy's National centre for miscarriage research, with payment received by the institution for research, staff time, and consumables for research. H.S.N. reports grants with payment to institution from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, the Danish ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond, and Independent Research Fund Denmark and speakers' fees for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, IBSA Nordic and Cook Medical. She also reports to be an unpaid founder and chairman of a maternity foundation. M.-L.v.d.H. received small honoraria for lectures on RPL care. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

The upper extremity postthrombotic syndrome score: an international Delphi consensus study to determine the score's functional disability component.

Background: In upper extremity thrombosis research, the occurrence of upper extremity postthrombotic syndrome (UE-PTS) is commonly used as the main outcome parameter. However, there is currently no reporting standard or a validated method to assess UE-PTS presence and severity. In a recent Delphi study, consensus was reached on a preliminary UE-PTS score, combining 5 symptoms, 3 signs, and the inclusion of a functional disability score. However, no consensus was reached on which functional disability score to be included. Objectives: The aim of the current Delphi consensus study was to determine the specific type of functional disability score to finalize UE-PTS score. Methods: This Delphi project was designed as a three-round study using open text questions, statements with 7-point Likert scales, and multiple-choice questions. The CREDES recommendations for Delphi studies were applied. In this context, a systematic review was conducted before the start of the Delphi rounds to identify the available functional disability scores as available in the literature and present these to the expert panel. Results: Thirty-five of 47 initially invited international experts from multiple disciplines completed all the Delphi rounds. In the second round, consensus was reached on the incorporation of the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) in the UE-PTS score, rendering the third round obsolete. Conclusion: Consensus was reached that the QuickDASH should be incorporated in the UE-PTS score. The UE-PTS score will need to be validated in a large cohort of patients with upper extremity thrombosis before it can be used in clinical practice and future research.

[Venous thromboembolism and antiphospholipid syndrome - considerations on diagnosis and treatment]. / Veneuze trombo-embolie bij antifosfolipidensyndroom.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an auto-immune syndrome defined by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Antiphospholipid antibodies are a group of antibodies predominantly directed at phospholipid-bound plasma proteins. The more antibodies a patient has the higher the risk of thrombosis. The origin of the antibodies and the precise prothrombotic mechanism are incompletely understood. A diagnosis of APS can in certain clinical scenarios implicate a longer treatment with anticoagulants after a venous thromboembolism. High level evidence is absent. In addition, APS patients with a high risk antibody profile had a higher risk of arterial thrombosis in randomized trials when treated with direct oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists. The number needed to screen in light of these possible consequences of an APS diagnosis for treatment, appears to high to justify routine screening. In this review we suggest indications for APS testing in the context of venous thromboembolism.