A systematic review of biomarkers among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 predictive of venous thromboembolism: A communication from the Predictive and Diagnostic Variables Scientific and Standardization Committee of the ISTH.

Background: Thrombosis is reported to occur more often among patients with COVID-19 than otherwise expected in the setting of viral pneumonia and sepsis. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers may be associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. The ISTH subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease aimed to report the evidence on prognostic biomarkers for VTE in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Using a standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis methodology, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies reporting prognostic biomarkers for VTE among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Eligible studies included adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and reported the prognostic associations between any biomarker measured on admission, and the subsequent diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and three authors extracted study data and performed review of bias. Results were displayed descriptively. Meta-analysis was not possible. Results: From the initial 196 identified studies, full-text review was performed for 72 studies. Admission D-dimer levels were associated with VTE during hospitalization in five studies, and elevated platelet count was associated with VTE during hospitalization in one study. The risk of bias ranged from low to high for included studies. Overall, there was a paucity of high-quality prognostic studies. Studies on other biomarkers did not meet the systematic review inclusion criteria. Conclusions: Admission D-dimer was associated with VTE diagnosis during hospitalization for COVID-19; however, prospective validation of this finding is needed to identify optimal D-dimer thresholds to guide VTE prophylaxis measures.

Management of bleeding risk in patients who receive anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease.

Patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) require anticoagulant therapy to prevent recurrent VTE and death, which exposes them to an inherent increased risk of bleeding. Identification of patients at high risk of bleeding, and mitigating this risk, is an essential component of the immediate and long-term therapeutic management of VTE. The bleeding risk can be estimated by either implicit judgment, weighing individual predictors (clinical variables or biomarkers), or by risk prediction tools developed for this purpose. Management of bleeding risk in clinical practice is, however, far from standardized. International guidelines are contradictory and lack clear and consistent guidance on the optimal management of bleeding risk. This report of the ISTH subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease summarizes the evidence on the prediction of bleeding in VTE patients. We systematically searched the literature and identified 34 original studies evaluating either predictors or risk prediction models for prediction of bleeding risk on anticoagulation in VTE patients. Based on this evidence, we provide recommendations for the standardized management of bleeding risk in VTE patients.

Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the tools used to measure the financial value of libraries in a clinical setting. METHODS: Searches were carried out on ten databases for the years 2003-2013, with a final search before completion to identify any recent papers. RESULTS: Eleven papers met the final inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a single 'best practice', and many metrics used to measure financial impact of clinical libraries were developed on an ad hoc basis locally. The most common measures of financial impact were value of time saved, value of resource collection against cost of alternative sources, cost avoidance and revenue generated through assistance on grant submissions. Few papers provided an insight into the longer term impact on the library service resulting from submitting return on investment (ROI) or other financial impact statements. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited examples of metrics which clinical libraries can use to measure explicit financial impact. The methods highlighted in this literature review are generally implicit in the measures used and lack robustness. There is a need for future research to develop standardised, validated tools that clinical libraries can use to demonstrate their financial impact.