Illustrated State-of-the-Art Capsules of the ISTH 2020 Congress.

This year's Congress of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was hosted virtually from Philadelphia July 17-21, 2021. The conference, now held annually, highlighted cutting-edge advances in basic, population and clinical sciences of relevance to the Society. Despite being held virtually, the 2021 congress was of the same scope and quality as an annual meeting held in person. An added feature of the program is that talks streamed at the designated times will then be available on-line for asynchronous viewing. The program included 77 State of the Art (SOA) talks, thematically grouped in 28 sessions, given by internationally recognized leaders in the field. The SOA speakers were invited to prepare brief illustrated reviews of their talks that were peer reviewed and are included in this article. The topics, across the main scientific themes of the congress, include Arterial Thromboembolism, Coagulation and Natural Anticoagulants, COVID-19 and Coagulation, Diagnostics and Omics, Fibrinogen, Fibrinolysis and Proteolysis, Hemophilia and Rare Bleeding Disorders, Hemostasis in Cancer, Inflammation and Immunity, Pediatrics, Platelet Disorders, von Willebrand Disease and Thrombotic Angiopathies, Platelets and Megakaryocytes, Vascular Biology, Venous Thromboembolism and Women's Health. These illustrated capsules highlight the major scientific advances with potential to impact clinical practice. Readers are invited to take advantage of the excellent educational resource provided by these illustrated capsules. They are also encouraged to use the image in social media to draw attention to the high quality and impact of the science presented at the congress.

The usefulness of D-dimer as a predictive marker for mortality in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized during the first wave in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Identification of predictors of poor outcomes will assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited healthcare resources. AIMS: The primary aim was to study the value of D-dimer as a predictive marker for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This was a cohort study. The study population consisted of hospitalized patients (age >18 years), who were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on real-time PCR at 9 hospitals during the first COVID-19 wave in Lombardy, Italy (Feb-May 2020). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Information was obtained from patient records. Statistical analyses were performed using a Fine-Gray competing risk survival model. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index and model calibration was assessed using a calibration plot. RESULTS: Out of 1049 patients, 507 patients (46%) had evaluable data. Of these 507 patients, 96 died within 30 days. The cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality within 30 days was 19% (95CI: 16%-23%), and the majority of deaths occurred within the first 10 days. A prediction model containing D-dimer as the only predictor had a C-index of 0.66 (95%CI: 0.61-0.71). Overall calibration of the model was very poor. The addition of D-dimer to a model containing age, sex and co-morbidities as predictors did not lead to any meaningful improvement in either the C-index or the calibration plot. CONCLUSION: The predictive value of D-dimer alone was moderate, and the addition of D-dimer to a simple model containing basic clinical characteristics did not lead to any improvement in model performance.

External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited resources. AIMS: To externally validate two promising previously published risk scores that predict in-hospital mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Two prospective cohorts were available; a cohort of 1028 patients admitted to one of nine hospitals in Lombardy, Italy (the Lombardy cohort) and a cohort of 432 patients admitted to a hospital in Leiden, the Netherlands (the Leiden cohort). The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. All patients were adult and tested COVID-19 PCR-positive. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed. RESULTS: The C-statistic of the 4C mortality score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.85, 95CI: 0.82-0.89) and in the Leiden cohort (0.87, 95CI: 0.80-0.94). Model calibration was acceptable in the Lombardy cohort but poor in the Leiden cohort due to the model systematically overpredicting the mortality risk for all patients. The C-statistic of the CURB-65 score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.80, 95CI: 0.75-0.85) and in the Leiden cohort (0.82, 95CI: 0.76-0.88). The mortality rate in the CURB-65 development cohort was much lower than the mortality rate in the Lombardy cohort. A similar but less pronounced trend was found for patients in the Leiden cohort. CONCLUSION: Although performances did not differ greatly, the 4C mortality score showed the best performance. However, because of quickly changing circumstances, model recalibration may be necessary before using the 4C mortality score.

Comparison of adverse drug reactions among four COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using the EudraVigilance database: Thrombosis at unusual sites.

BACKGROUND: Real-world experience with adenoviral vector vaccines against COVID-19 raised some safety concerns. Cases of cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) associated with thrombocytopenia have been observed after the first dose of the adenoviral vector vaccines CHADOX1 NCOV-19 and AD26.COV2.S. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting rate of CVT as adverse drug reaction (ADR) for the COVID-19 vaccines authorized in Europe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study assessed the CVT reporting rate attributed to four COVID-19 vaccines authorized in Europe, namely Tozinameran (Pfizer-Biontech), CX-024414 (Moderna), CHADOX1 NCOV-19 (AstraZeneca), and AD26.COV2.S (Janssen). Data on thrombotic ADRs reported on EudraVigilance database between January 1, 2021 and July 30, 2021, were collected. ADRs referring to CVT were identified. The reporting rate of CVT was expressed as 1 million individual vaccinated-days with 95% confidence interval. Finally, an observed-to-expected (OE) analysis was performed. RESULTS: The reporting rate of CVT per 1 million person vaccinated-days was 1.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.12) for Tozinameran, 5.63 (95% CI, 4.74-6.64) for CX-024414, 21.60 (95% CI, 20.16-23.11) for CHADOX1 NCOV-19, and 11.48 (95% CI, 9.57-13.67) for AD26.COV2.S. CVT occurred alongside thrombocytopenia for the four vaccines. The OE ratio was greater than one for all four vaccines, both with the lowest and the highest CVT background incidence. CONCLUSIONS: This report on EudraVigilance data strengthens anecdotal findings on CVT following COVID-19 vaccinations. Although the European Medicines Agency released an alert only for CHADOX1 NCOV-19 and AD26.COV2.S, Tozinameran and CX-024414 also are complicated by CVT, albeit to lesser extent.

European stroke organization interim expert opinion on cerebral venous thrombosis occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Severe cases of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) with thrombocytopenia and anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies occurring after adenoviral vector anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been recently reported. We aim to present a guidance document on the diagnosis and treatment of patients presenting with CVT after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the available evidence which consists on case reports, small case series, expert opinion and analogy with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) management. Because of the low level of evidence, this is an interim document, based only on expert opinion consensus. In patients presenting with CVT after being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection, if there is thrombocytopenia a reliable HIT PF4 Antibody ELISA test should be performed, to confirm vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). In patients with CVT and thrombocytopenia, in whom VITT is suspected or confirmed, heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) should be avoided and non-heparin anticoagulants are preferred. If possible, platelet transfusions should be avoided. If the diagnosis of VITT is confirmed or suspected, early intravenous immunoglobulins are indicated. This expert opinion is supported by low quality evidence. It should be periodically updated, or changed to a formal guideline, as new and higher quality evidence is eventually produced. Because of their potential unfavourable clinical course, patients developing symptoms and signs suggestive of CVT after being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 virus should undergo urgent clinical and neuroimaging evaluation. In cases of suspected or confirmed VITT, non-heparin anticoagulants should be used, platelet transfusions avoided and intravenous immunoglobulin started early.

Increasing dosages of low-molecular-weight heparin in hospitalized patients with Covid-19.

We conducted an observational cohort study in adult patients consecutively admitted for the respiratory illness Covid-19 to our hub hospital from March 9 to April 7, 2020. The high observed rate of venous thromboembolism prompted us to increase the prophylactic doses of enoxaparin from 40 mg daily up to 1 mg/kg twice daily in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), 0.7 mg/kg twice daily in high-intensity of care wards and 1 mg/kg daily in low-intensity of care wards. Patients on high enoxaparin doses were compared to those who received prophylaxis with the standard dosage. Efficacy endpoints were mortality, clinical deterioration, and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleeding. Of 278 patients with Covid-19, 127 received prophylaxis with high enoxaparin doses and 151 with standard dosage. At 21 days, the incidence rate of death and clinical deterioration were lower in patients on higher doses than in those on the standard dosage (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62), and the incidence of venous thromboembolism was also lower (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.05). Major bleeding occurred in four of 127 patients (3.1%) on the high enoxaparin dosage. In conclusion, in the cohort of patients with Covid-19 treated with high enoxaparin dosages we observed a 60% reduction of mortality and clinical deterioration and a 50% reduction of venous thromboembolism compared to standard dosage prophylaxis. However, 3% of patients on high enoxaparin dosages had non-fatal major bleeding.