Thrombosis

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: The PARTHENON clinical development program has conducted several clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of ticagrelor in multiple cardiovascular diseases. A prior study revealed the addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in patients with history of MI showed a small benefit in cardiovascular outcomes but with increased bleeding risk. While this effect was seen in both patients with and without diabetes, the absolute benefit for those with diabetes was considered large because of their higher baseline risk. Given this, investigators wanted to know if addition of ticagrelor to aspirin could also be beneficial in diabetics with known coronary disease but without history of MI or stroke.

Further studies into risk stratification based on prothrombotic versus bleeding risk could be beneficial in identifying specific groups that could benefit from DAPT. Conclusions from this study suggest the benefit of DAPT in diabetics does not outweigh its risk.

Bottom line: Addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary disease and no prior MI or stroke is not recommended.

Citation: Steg PG et al. Ticagrelor in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes. N Eng J Med. 2019 Oct 3;381(14):1309-20.

Dr. Breitbach is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: The PARTHENON clinical development program has conducted several clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of ticagrelor in multiple cardiovascular diseases. A prior study revealed the addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in patients with history of MI showed a small benefit in cardiovascular outcomes but with increased bleeding risk. While this effect was seen in both patients with and without diabetes, the absolute benefit for those with diabetes was considered large because of their higher baseline risk. Given this, investigators wanted to know if addition of ticagrelor to aspirin could also be beneficial in diabetics with known coronary disease but without history of MI or stroke.

Further studies into risk stratification based on prothrombotic versus bleeding risk could be beneficial in identifying specific groups that could benefit from DAPT. Conclusions from this study suggest the benefit of DAPT in diabetics does not outweigh its risk.

Bottom line: Addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary disease and no prior MI or stroke is not recommended.

Citation: Steg PG et al. Ticagrelor in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes. N Eng J Med. 2019 Oct 3;381(14):1309-20.

Dr. Breitbach is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: The PARTHENON clinical development program has conducted several clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of ticagrelor in multiple cardiovascular diseases. A prior study revealed the addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in patients with history of MI showed a small benefit in cardiovascular outcomes but with increased bleeding risk. While this effect was seen in both patients with and without diabetes, the absolute benefit for those with diabetes was considered large because of their higher baseline risk. Given this, investigators wanted to know if addition of ticagrelor to aspirin could also be beneficial in diabetics with known coronary disease but without history of MI or stroke.

Further studies into risk stratification based on prothrombotic versus bleeding risk could be beneficial in identifying specific groups that could benefit from DAPT. Conclusions from this study suggest the benefit of DAPT in diabetics does not outweigh its risk.

Bottom line: Addition of ticagrelor to aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary disease and no prior MI or stroke is not recommended.

Citation: Steg PG et al. Ticagrelor in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes. N Eng J Med. 2019 Oct 3;381(14):1309-20.

Dr. Breitbach is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is both a prothrombotic state and a condition with an elevated bleeding risk that increases in a linear fashion as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreases. These features of the disease along with the exclusion of patients with CKD from most anticoagulation trials have resulted in uncertainty about overall risks and benefits of anticoagulant use in this population.

The most compelling data were seen in the management of atrial fibrillation in early-stage CKD (five studies representing 11,332 patients) in which high-dose DOACs were associated with a lower risk for stroke or systemic embolism (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92), hemorrhagic stroke (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76), and all-cause death (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99). Overall stroke reduction was primarily hemorrhagic, and DOACs were equivalent to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for ischemic stroke risk.

The analysis also suggests that, in CKD, DOACs may reduce major bleeding when compared with VKAs across a variety of indications, though that finding was not statistically significant.

Efficacy of DOACs, compared with VKAs, in treatment of venous thromboembolism was uncertain, and patients with end-stage kidney disease and advanced CKD (creatinine clearance, less than 25 mL/min) were excluded from all trials comparing DOACs with VKAs, with limited overall data in these populations.

Bottom line: For patients with atrial fibrillation and early-stage CKD, direct oral anticoagulants show a promising risk-benefit profile when compared with vitamin K antagonists. Very few data are available on the safety and efficacy of anticoagulants in patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease.

Citation: Ha JT et al. Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulant therapy in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):181-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is both a prothrombotic state and a condition with an elevated bleeding risk that increases in a linear fashion as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreases. These features of the disease along with the exclusion of patients with CKD from most anticoagulation trials have resulted in uncertainty about overall risks and benefits of anticoagulant use in this population.

The most compelling data were seen in the management of atrial fibrillation in early-stage CKD (five studies representing 11,332 patients) in which high-dose DOACs were associated with a lower risk for stroke or systemic embolism (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92), hemorrhagic stroke (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76), and all-cause death (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99). Overall stroke reduction was primarily hemorrhagic, and DOACs were equivalent to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for ischemic stroke risk.

The analysis also suggests that, in CKD, DOACs may reduce major bleeding when compared with VKAs across a variety of indications, though that finding was not statistically significant.

Efficacy of DOACs, compared with VKAs, in treatment of venous thromboembolism was uncertain, and patients with end-stage kidney disease and advanced CKD (creatinine clearance, less than 25 mL/min) were excluded from all trials comparing DOACs with VKAs, with limited overall data in these populations.

Bottom line: For patients with atrial fibrillation and early-stage CKD, direct oral anticoagulants show a promising risk-benefit profile when compared with vitamin K antagonists. Very few data are available on the safety and efficacy of anticoagulants in patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease.

Citation: Ha JT et al. Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulant therapy in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):181-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is both a prothrombotic state and a condition with an elevated bleeding risk that increases in a linear fashion as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreases. These features of the disease along with the exclusion of patients with CKD from most anticoagulation trials have resulted in uncertainty about overall risks and benefits of anticoagulant use in this population.

The most compelling data were seen in the management of atrial fibrillation in early-stage CKD (five studies representing 11,332 patients) in which high-dose DOACs were associated with a lower risk for stroke or systemic embolism (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92), hemorrhagic stroke (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76), and all-cause death (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99). Overall stroke reduction was primarily hemorrhagic, and DOACs were equivalent to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for ischemic stroke risk.

The analysis also suggests that, in CKD, DOACs may reduce major bleeding when compared with VKAs across a variety of indications, though that finding was not statistically significant.

Efficacy of DOACs, compared with VKAs, in treatment of venous thromboembolism was uncertain, and patients with end-stage kidney disease and advanced CKD (creatinine clearance, less than 25 mL/min) were excluded from all trials comparing DOACs with VKAs, with limited overall data in these populations.

Bottom line: For patients with atrial fibrillation and early-stage CKD, direct oral anticoagulants show a promising risk-benefit profile when compared with vitamin K antagonists. Very few data are available on the safety and efficacy of anticoagulants in patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease.

Citation: Ha JT et al. Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulant therapy in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):181-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Clinical question: Is it safe to adopt a standardized approach to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) interruption for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are undergoing elective surgeries/procedures?

The primary clinical outcomes were major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism. Authors determined safety by comparing to expected outcome rates derived from research on perioperative warfarin management.

They found that all three drugs were associated with acceptable rates of arterial thromboembolism (apixaban 0.2%, dabigatran 0.6%, rivaroxaban 0.4%). The rates of major bleeding observed with each drug (apixaban 0.6% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures; dabigatran 0.9% both low- and high-risk procedures; and rivaroxaban 1.3% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures) were similar to those in the BRIDGE trial (patients on warfarin who were not bridged perioperatively). However, it must still be noted that only dabigatran met the authors’ predetermined definition of safety for major bleeding.

Limitations include the lack of true control rates for major bleeding and stroke, the relatively low mean CHADS2-Va2Sc of 3.3-3.5, and that greater than 95% of patients were white.

Bottom line: For patients with moderate-risk atrial fibrillation, a standardized approach to DOAC interruption in the perioperative period that omits bridging along with coagulation function testing appears safe in this preliminary study.

Citation: Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2431.

Dr. Gordon is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland.

Clinical question: Is it safe to adopt a standardized approach to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) interruption for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are undergoing elective surgeries/procedures?

The primary clinical outcomes were major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism. Authors determined safety by comparing to expected outcome rates derived from research on perioperative warfarin management.

They found that all three drugs were associated with acceptable rates of arterial thromboembolism (apixaban 0.2%, dabigatran 0.6%, rivaroxaban 0.4%). The rates of major bleeding observed with each drug (apixaban 0.6% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures; dabigatran 0.9% both low- and high-risk procedures; and rivaroxaban 1.3% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures) were similar to those in the BRIDGE trial (patients on warfarin who were not bridged perioperatively). However, it must still be noted that only dabigatran met the authors’ predetermined definition of safety for major bleeding.

Limitations include the lack of true control rates for major bleeding and stroke, the relatively low mean CHADS2-Va2Sc of 3.3-3.5, and that greater than 95% of patients were white.

Bottom line: For patients with moderate-risk atrial fibrillation, a standardized approach to DOAC interruption in the perioperative period that omits bridging along with coagulation function testing appears safe in this preliminary study.

Citation: Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2431.

Dr. Gordon is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland.

Clinical question: Is it safe to adopt a standardized approach to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) interruption for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are undergoing elective surgeries/procedures?

The primary clinical outcomes were major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism. Authors determined safety by comparing to expected outcome rates derived from research on perioperative warfarin management.

They found that all three drugs were associated with acceptable rates of arterial thromboembolism (apixaban 0.2%, dabigatran 0.6%, rivaroxaban 0.4%). The rates of major bleeding observed with each drug (apixaban 0.6% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures; dabigatran 0.9% both low- and high-risk procedures; and rivaroxaban 1.3% low-risk procedures, 3% high-risk procedures) were similar to those in the BRIDGE trial (patients on warfarin who were not bridged perioperatively). However, it must still be noted that only dabigatran met the authors’ predetermined definition of safety for major bleeding.

Limitations include the lack of true control rates for major bleeding and stroke, the relatively low mean CHADS2-Va2Sc of 3.3-3.5, and that greater than 95% of patients were white.

Bottom line: For patients with moderate-risk atrial fibrillation, a standardized approach to DOAC interruption in the perioperative period that omits bridging along with coagulation function testing appears safe in this preliminary study.

Citation: Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2431.

Dr. Gordon is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]