Thromboembolic prevention and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: updated clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Thromboembolism is a common and deadly consequence of COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients. Based on clinical evidence pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic and early observational reports, expert consensus and guidance documents have strongly encouraged the use of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. More recently, multiple clinical trials and larger observational studies have provided evidence for tailoring the approach to thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19. This document provides updated guidance for the use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19 from the Anticoagulation Forum, the leading North American organization of anticoagulation providers. We discuss ambulatory, in-hospital, and post-hospital thromboprophylaxis strategies as well as provide guidance for patients with thrombotic conditions who are considering COVID-19 vaccination.

Use of apixaban and rivaroxaban in young adults with acute venous thromboembolism: a multi-center retrospective case series.

Since 2012 four direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Clinical trials comparing DOACs to warfarin included more than 13,500 patients. However, included patients were all age 39 years or older. We sought to describe real-world use of DOACs among young adults with acute VTE. Multi-center retrospective case series of young adult patients (age 18-40 years) at two large academic medical centers who initiated any DOAC for VTE therapy in 2015 or 2016. Thrombotic and bleeding events as well as off-label drug use were described using summary statistics. Fifty-seven patients were identified (63.2% female). One of the 57 patients (1.8%) had a thromboembolic event. Seven of the 57 patients (12.3%) experienced a bleeding event, one categorized as a major bleed and six being categorized as clinically relevant non-major bleeding. One of the ten (10%) patients receiving apixaban was not initiated on the FDA-recommended 10 mg twice daily for the first 7 days. Seven of the 47 (14.9%) patients receiving rivaroxaban were not initiated on the FDA-recommended 15 mg twice daily dosing for the first 21 days. Bleeding occurred in approximately 14% of young adult patients treated with DOAC therapy. However, only one patient had their DOAC discontinued due to a major bleeding event. Recurrence of DVT while on DOAC therapy was rare.

Thromboembolism and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: interim clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection that can, in severe cases, result in cytokine storm, systemic inflammatory response and coagulopathy that is prognostic of poor outcomes. While some, but not all, laboratory findings appear similar to sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), COVID-19- induced coagulopathy (CIC) appears to be more prothrombotic than hemorrhagic. It has been postulated that CIC may be an uncontrolled immunothrombotic response to COVID-19, and there is growing evidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events in these critically ill patients. Clinicians around the globe are challenged with rapidly identifying reasonable diagnostic, monitoring and anticoagulant strategies to safely and effectively manage these patients. Thoughtful use of proven, evidence-based approaches must be carefully balanced with integration of rapidly emerging evidence and growing experience. The goal of this document is to provide guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum, a North American organization of anticoagulation providers, regarding use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19. We discuss in-hospital and post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, treatment of suspected but unconfirmed VTE, laboratory monitoring of COVID-19, associated anticoagulant therapies, and essential elements for optimized transitions of care specific to patients with COVID-19.

Timing of Off-Label Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Three Large Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: While direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be viewed as simpler to manage then warfarin, they present their own unique management challenges resulting in frequent off-label dosing. It is unknown to what extent off-label dosing occurs when a patient is started on a DOAC versus later in their treatment. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to better characterize when off-label DOAC dosing is occurring and to evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing oversight using a registry-based intervention. METHODS: We evaluated data from the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) registry, a retrospective quality-improvement process using data abstractors, from 2018 to 2022 on the number of "alerts" that are generated in response to dosing deviating from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration instructions for atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESULTS: Among a sample of 789 to 1,022 annual AF patients and 381 to 484 annual VTE patients prescribed a DOAC in the MAQI2 registry, off-label dosing was relatively common. Over the 5-year period (2018-2022), there were 569 alerts for AF patients and 162 alerts for VTE patients. Alerts occurred more frequently during follow-up than at the time of initial prescribing in AF patients (78.2 vs. 21.8%), but more commonly at initial prescribing in VTE patients (59.9 vs. 40.1%). After initial review by quality-improvement abstractors, 19.3% of AF alerts and 14.8% of VTE alerts resulted in contact to the prescriber. When the prescriber was contacted, it led to an intervention about 75% of the time for both populations. The most common intervention was a change in DOAC dosing. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefit of DOAC prescribing oversight using a registry-based intervention to monitor for off-label dosing for the entirety of the time period a patient is prescribed DOAC, particularly for patients with AF, as off-label prescribing occurs frequently during the follow-up period.

Impact of Electronic Chronic Pain Questions on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization, and attitudes toward eCPQ use among patients and physicians: prospective pragmatic study in a US general practice setting.

Objective: The Electronic Chronic Pain Questions (eCPQ) has been developed to help healthcare providers systematically capture chronic pain data. This study evaluated the impact of using the eCPQ on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in a primary care setting, and patient and physician perceptions regarding use of, and satisfaction with, the eCPQ. Methods: This was a prospective pragmatic study conducted at the Internal Medicine clinic within the Henry Ford Health (HFH) Detroit campus between June 2017 and April 2020. Patients (aged ≥18 years) attending the clinic for chronic pain were allocated to an Intervention Group to complete the eCPQ in addition to regular care, or a control group to receive regular care only. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and a Patient Global Assessment were assessed at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months study visits. HCRU data were extracted from the HFH database. Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted with randomly selected patients and physicians who used the eCPQ. Results: Two hundred patients were enrolled, 79 in each treatment group completed all 3 study visits. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in PROs and HCRU between the 2 groups. In qualitative interviews, physicians and patients reported the eCPQ as useful, and using the eCPQ improved patient-clinician interactions. Conclusion: Adding the eCPQ to regular care for patients with chronic pain did not significantly impact the PROs assessed in this study. However, qualitative interviews suggested that the eCPQ was a well-accepted and potentially useful tool from a patient and physician perspective. By using the eCPQ, patients were better prepared when they attended a primary care visit for their chronic pain and the quality of patient-physician communication was increased.