External validation of the ADA score for predicting thrombosis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients from the APEX Trial.

The ADA (Age-D-dimer-Albumin) score was developed to identify hospitalized patients at an increased risk for thrombosis in the coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) setting. The study aimed to validate the ADA score for predicting thrombosis in a non-COVID-19 medically ill population from the APEX trial. The APEX trial was a multinational, randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of betrixaban vs. enoxaparin among acutely ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. The study endpoints included the composite of arterial or venous thrombosis and its components. Metrics of model calibration and discrimination were computed for assessing the performance of the ADA score as compared to the IMPROVE score, a well-validated VTE risk assessment model. Among 7,119 medical inpatients, 209 (2.9%) had a thrombosis event up to 77 days of follow-up. The ADA score demonstrated good calibration for both arterial and venous thrombosis, whereas the IMPROVE score had adequate calibration for venous thrombosis (p > 0.05 from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test). For discriminating arterial and venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.620 [95% CI: 0.582 to 0.657] vs. 0.590 [95% CI: 0.556 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.030 [95% CI: -0.022 to 0.081]; p = 0.255). Similarly, for discriminating arterial thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.582 [95% CI: 0.534 to 0.629] vs. 0.609 [95% CI: 0.564 to 0.653]; ∆ c statistic = -0.027 [95% CI: -0.091 to 0.036]; p = 0.397). For discriminating venous thrombosis, the ADA score was modestly superior to the IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.664 [95% CI: 0.607 to 0.722] vs. 0.573 [95% CI: 0.521 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.091 [95% CI: 0.011 to 0.172]; p = 0.026). The ADA score had a higher sensitivity (0.579 [95% CI: 0.512 to 0.646]; vs. 0.440 [95% CI: 0.373 to 0.507]) but lower specificity (0.625 [95% CI: 0.614 to 0.637] vs. 0.747 [95% CI: 0.737 to 0.758]) than the IMPROVE score for predicting thrombosis. Among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the APEX trial, the ADA score demonstrated good calibration but suboptimal discrimination for predicting thrombosis. The findings support the use of either the ADA or IMPROVE score for thrombosis risk assessment. The applicability of the ADA score to non-COVID-19 populations warrants further research.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01583218.

A consensus viewpoint on the role of direct factor Xa inhibitors in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of cancer-related death. Historically, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were the gold standard therapy for cancer-associated VTE, but recent evidence supports the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE and this is now reflected in many guidelines. However, uptake of direct factor Xa inhibitors varies and guidance on the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in specific cancer sub-populations and clinical situations is lacking. This review presents consensus expert opinion alongside evaluation of evidence to support healthcare professionals in the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE. METHODS: Recent guidelines, meta-analyses, reviews and clinical studies on anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE were used to direct clinically relevant topics and evidence to be systematically discussed using nominal group technique. The consensus manuscript and recommendations were developed based on these discussions. RESULTS: Considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE include cancer site and stage, systemic anti-cancer therapy (including vascular access), drug-drug interactions, length of anticoagulation, quality of life and needs during palliative care. Treatment of patients with kidney or liver impairment, gastrointestinal disorders, extremes of bodyweight, elevated bleeding or recurrence risk, VTE recurrence and COVID-19 is discussed. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE patients should be carefully selected with consideration given to the relative benefits of specific drugs when individualizing care. Direct factor Xa inhibitors are typically the treatment of choice for preventing VTE recurrence in non-cancer patients and should also be considered as such for cancer-associated VTE in most situations.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine and Thrombosis: An Expert Consensus on Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.

Historically, the vaccination strategies developed in the second half of the 20th century have facilitated the eradication of infectious diseases. From the onset of COVID-19 pandemic to the end of April 2021, more than 150 million cases and 3 million deaths were documented worldwide with disruption of the economic and social activity, and with devastating material, physical, and psychological consequences. Reports of unusual and severe thrombotic events, including cerebral and splanchnic venous thrombosis and other autoimmune adverse reactions, such as immune thrombocytopenia or thrombotic microangiopathies in connection with some of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, have caused a great deal of concern within the population and the medical community. This report is intended to provide practical answers following an overview of our knowledge on these thrombotic events that are extremely rare but have serious consequences. Vaccine hesitancy threatens to reverse the progress made in controlling vaccine-preventable diseases. These adverse events must be put into perspective with an objective analysis of the facts and the issues of the vaccination strategy during this SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Health care professionals remain the most pertinent advisors and influencers regarding vaccination decisions; they have to be supported to provide reliable and credible information on vaccines. We need to inform, reassure, and support our patients when the prescription is made. Facing these challenges and observations, a panel of experts express their insights and propose a tracking algorithm for vaccinated patients based on a 10-point guideline for decision-making on what to do and not to do.