Consensus recommendations for preventing and managing bleeding complications associated with novel oral anticoagulants in singapore

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have at least equivalent efficacy compared to standard anticoagulants with similar bleeding risk. Optimal management strategies for bleeding complications associated with NOACs are currently unestablished.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>A working group comprising haematologists and vascular medicine specialists representing the major institutions in Singapore was convened to produce this consensus recommendation. A Medline and EMBASE search was conducted for articles related to the 3 available NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban), bleeding and its management. Additional information was obtained from the product monographs and bibliographic search of articles identified.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The NOACs still has substantial interactions with a number of drugs for which concomitant administration should best be avoided. As they are renally excreted, albeit to different degrees, NOACs should not be prescribed to patients with creatinine clearance of <30 mLs/min. Meticulous consideration of risk versus benefits should be exercised before starting a patient on a NOAC. In patients presenting with bleeding, risk stratification of the severity of bleeding as well as identification of the source of bleeding should be performed. In life-threatening bleeds, recombinant activated factor VIIa and prothrombin complex may be considered although their effectiveness is currently unsupported by firm clinical evidence. The NOACs have varying effect on the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time which has to be interpreted with caution. Routine monitoring of drug level is not usually required.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>NOACs are an important advancement in antithrombotic management and careful patient selection and monitoring will permit optimisation of their potential and limit bleeding events.</p>

Risk factors for adverse outcomes and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteraemia in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia in a Singaporean university hospital

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Institutional febrile neutropenia (FN) management protocols were changed following the finding of a high prevalence of ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacteraemia (CR-GNB) among haematology patients with FN. Piperacillin/tazobactam replaced ceftazidime as the initial empirical antibiotic of choice, whereas carbapenems were prescribed empirically for patients with recent extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonisation/infection. An audit was conducted to determine the impact of these changes.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Data from all FN episodes between October 2008 and December 2010 were collected prospectively, with mid-November 2009 demarking the transition between pre-intervention and intervention periods. Outcomes measured included 30-day mortality post-development of FN and the presence of CR-GNB.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were 427 FN episodes (200 in the pre-intervention period) from 225 patients. The prevalence of CRGNB was 10.3%, while the 30-day mortality was 4.7%, with no difference between pre-intervention and intervention periods. Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality included the presence of active haematological disease, vancomycin prescription and older age. Independent factors associated with initial CR-GNB were profound neutropenia, the presence of severe sepsis and active haematological disease. Recent ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonisation/infection was not predictive of subsequent CR-GNB (positive predictive value 17.3%), whereas a model based on independent risk factors had better negative predictive value (95.4%) but similarly poor positive predictive value (21.4%), despite higher sensitivity.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>A change in the FN protocol did not result in improved outcomes. Nonetheless, the audit highlighted that empirical carbapenem prescription may be unnecessary in FN episodes without evidence of severe sepsis or septic shock, regardless of previous microbiology results.</p>