Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives: We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design: We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting: NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants: Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions: Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures: Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results: We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations: Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work: Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who are admitted to hospital are at risk of blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Patients are often given low doses of blood-thinning drugs to reduce this risk. However, these drugs can cause side effects, such as bleeding. Hospitals currently use complex risk assessment models (risk scores, which usually include patient, disease, mobility and intervention factors) to determine the individual risk of blood clots and identify people most likely to benefit from blood-thinning drugs. There are a lot of different risk scores and we do not know which one is best. We also do not know how these scores compare to each other or whether using scores to decide who should get blood-thinning drugs provides good value for money to the NHS. We reviewed all previous studies of risk scores. We found that they did not predict blood clots very well and we could not recommend one score over another. We then created a mathematical model to simulate the use of blood-thinning drugs in people admitted to hospital. The model suggested that giving blood-thinning drugs to everyone who could have them would probably provide the best value for money, in medical patients. Our findings were the same, but less certain, for surgical patients. We also collected information from four NHS hospitals to explore possibilities for future research. Our work showed that routinely collected electronic data on blood clots and bleeding events is not very accurate and that using different scores could result in variable use of blood-thinning medications. Our findings suggest that it may be better value to the NHS and better for patients if we were to offer blood-thinning medications to everyone on admission to hospital, without using any risk score. However, this approach needs further research to ensure it is safe and effective. Such research would not be able to rely on routine electronic data to identify blood clots or bleeding events, in isolation.

Associations Between Serum Bone Biomarkers in Early Breast Cancer and Development of Bone Metastasis: Results From the AZURE (BIG01/04) Trial.

Background: Adjuvant therapies can prevent/delay bone metastasis development in breast cancer. We investigated whether serum bone turnover markers in early disease have clinical utility in identifying patients with a high risk of developing bone metastasis. Methods: Markers of bone formation (N-terminal propeptide of type-1 collagen [P1NP]) and bone resorption (C-telopeptide of type-1 collagen [CTX], pyridinoline cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type-1 collagen [1-CTP]) were measured in baseline (pretreatment blood samples from 872 patients from a large randomized trial of adjuvant zoledronic acid (AZURE-ISRCTN79831382) in early breast cancer. Cox proportional hazards regression and cumulative incidence functions (adjusted for factors having a statistically significant effect on outcome) were used to investigate prognostic and predictive associations between recurrence events, bone marker levels, and clinical variables. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: When considered as continuous variables (log transformed), P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP were each prognostic for future bone recurrence at any time (P = .006, P = .009, P = .008, respectively). Harrell's c-indices were a P1NP of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.63), CTX of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.51 to 0.62), and 1-CTP of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.63). In categorical analyses based on the normal range, high baseline P1NP (>70 ng/mL) and CTX (>0.299 ng/mL), but not 1-CTP (>4.2 ng/mL), were also prognostic for future bone recurrence (P = .03, P = .03, P = .10, respectively). None of the markers were prognostic for overall distant recurrence; that is, they were bone metastasis specific, and none of the markers were predictive of treatment benefit from zoledronic acid. Conclusions: Serum P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP are clinically useful, easily measured markers that show good prognostic ability (though low-to-moderate discrimination) for bone-specific recurrence and are worthy of further study.

The anatomy of the perineal membrane: its relationship to injury in childbirth and episiotomy.

BACKGROUND: Episiotomy during childbirth, intended to protect the anal sphincter, may fail to do so. Furthermore damage to the anal sphincter complex may occur without complete perineal tear. We hypothesise that these particular injuries may occur due to posterior displacement of the anus leading to distraction of the anal sphincter complex from an anterior attachment to the perineal membrane. However, the anatomical basis for this has not been well defined. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the anal sphincter and the perineal membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution MRI scans of a female cadaver perineum were performed. The imaging findings were correlated with the anatomical structure identified on dissection and histological examination. RESULTS: The perineal membrane was easily identified on MR imaging. Fibres from the perineal membrane could be seen to attach to the anal sphincter complex at the apex of the perineal body This was confirmed on histological examination and was a deeper layer than that of the decussation of the superficial transverse perineal muscle with the superficial part of the external anal sphincter. CONCLUSION: The upper ano-rectal canal and apex of the perineal body have demonstrable attachment to the free margin of the perineal membrane postero-lateral to the lower vagina. This attachment would resist posterior displacement of the anal canal.