Prevalence and significance of large granular lymphocytes in patients with immune thrombocytopenia.

The association between T-cell large granular lymphocytes (T-LGL) and ITP is uncertain. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of T-LGL in patients with ITP and to describe its association with ITP disease severity. We analyzed flow cytometry results for T-LGL (using a threshold of 0.3 x109 or greater cells/L) or positive T-cell receptor clonality in patients with ITP and nonimmune thrombocytopenia. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the association between T-LGL and ITP, response to ITP treatments (rituximab and splenectomy) and response to T-LGL treatment. Among ITP patients, 14.3% (13/91) had evidence of a T-LGL population compared to 10.3% (3/29) of patients with non-immune thrombocytopenia. ITP patients with T-LGL had lower nadir platelet counts (2 vs. 47 × 109/L) and received more ITP treatments (median 6 vs. 3) than ITP patients without T-LGL. Response to rituximab was observed in 14.3% (1/7) of ITP patients with T-LGL and 54.5% (6/11) without T-LGL. Response to splenectomy was observed in 25% (2/8) with T-LGL and 56.2% (9/16) without T-LGL. Four patients with ITP and T-LGL received treatment for T-LGL with methotrexate; none had an improvement in platelet count levels. T-LGL may appear in patients with ITP, and the meaning of this finding remains unclear; however, for some patients, the presence of abnormal T-LGL may indicate a more severe form of ITP that tends to be less responsive to therapy. In this cohort, treatment of T-LGL with methotrexate did not improve platelet counts in the few patients who were treated.

Convalescent plasma for adults with acute COVID-19 respiratory illness (CONCOR-1): study protocol for an international, multicentre, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include the following: patients > 16 years, admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection, receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19, and availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are : onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization, intubated or imminent plan for intubation, and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP is collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α = 0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n = 600). DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres and neutralization assays for donor qualification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656 . Registered on 16 April 2020.

A physician survey of perioperative neuraxial anesthesia management in patients on a direct oral anticoagulant.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative management of patients taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) who require a high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia is uncertain. We surveyed clinician practices relating to DOAC interruption and related perioperative management in patients having high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia, and assess the suitability of a randomized trial of different perioperative DOAC management strategies. METHODS: We surveyed members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesia Society and Thrombosis Canada. We developed four clinical scenarios involving DOAC-treated patients who required anticoagulant interruption for elective high-bleed-risk surgery. In three scenarios, patients were to receive neuraxial anesthesia, and in one scenario they were to receive general anesthesia. We also asked about the merit of a randomized trial to compare a 2-day versus longer (3- to 5-day) duration of DOAC interruption. RESULTS: There were 399 survey respondents of whom 356 (89%) were anesthetists and 43 (11%) were medical specialists. The responses indicate uncertainty about the DOAC interruption interval for high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia; anesthetists favor 3- to 5-day interruption whereas medical specialists favor 2-day interruption. Anesthetists were unwilling to proceed with neuraxial anesthesia in patients with a 2-day DOAC interruption interval, preferring to cancel the surgery or switch to general anesthesia. There is general agreement on the need for a randomized trial in this field to compare a 2-day and a 3- to 5-day DOAC interruption management strategy. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in practices relating to the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients who require a high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia; this variability relates to the duration of DOAC interruption in such patients.

International survey on Helicobacter pylori testing in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: Communication of the platelet immunology scientific and standardization committee.

Essentials When to test and treat H pylori among patients with ITP is controversial. We report the results of an international survey administered to physicians with experience treating ITP across 39 countries. The decision to test for H pylori was influenced by country, country of origin, and concomitant gastrointestinal symptoms. Testing and treating for H pylori among patients with ITP varied across geographic regions. ABSTRACT: Background Investigations for patients suspected of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) lack standardization. A controversial issue is whether such patients should be tested for Helicobacter pylori, a known cause of secondary ITP. Objectives This Scientific and Standardization Committee Communication reports the results of an international survey to describe patterns of practice with respect to screening and treatment of H pylori among patients with ITP. Patients/Methods A 17-item scenario-based questionnaire was delivered to hematologists in countries across the world. The questionnaire was pilot tested before use. We used snowball sampling and a contact list of physicians from the Platelet Disorders Support Association to identify survey respondents. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results A total of 186 respondents from 39 countries completed the survey. Response rate from the snowball sample was 53.6%. Twenty-nine percent (n = 55) of respondents always tested ITP patients for H pylori, and 53% (n = 98) sometimes tested. Of the 37 respondents from Asia and the Middle East, 51.4% (n = 19) always tested for H pylori for the stated reasons of high local prevalence and perceived benefit of treatment on platelet count levels. Respondents were more likely to test patients who were from Asia (145/177, 80%) and who had concomitant gastrointestinal symptoms (133/183, 72%). For eradication therapy, 71 of 118 (60.2%) respondents used the combination of a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin for 14 days. Conclusions This international survey showed that testing for H pylori was most common in Asia and in patients from Asia. Testing and treating practices varied across geographic regions.

Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulant, Patient, and Surgery Characteristics on Clinical Outcomes in the Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation Study.

Introduction The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) Study assessed a standardized perioperative management strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation who were taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and required an elective surgery or procedure. The aim of this substudy is to analyze the safety of this management strategy across different patient subgroups, according to four presurgical variables: (1) DOAC type and dose, (2) surgery/procedure bleed risk, (3) patient renal function, and (4) age. Methods Clinical outcomes analyzed included major bleeding (MB), arterial thromboembolism, any bleeding, and any thromboembolism. We used descriptive statistics to summarize clinical outcomes, where the frequency, proportion, and 95% confidence interval were reported. Fisher's exact tests were used for testing the null hypothesis of independence between the clinical outcome and patient characteristic, where the test p -values were reported. Results There were 3,007 patients with atrial fibrillation requiring perioperative DOAC management. There was no significant difference in bleeding or thromboembolic outcomes according to DOAC type/dose regimen, renal function, or patient age. The rate of MB was significantly higher with high bleed risk procedures than low bleed risk procedures in apixaban-treated patients (2.9 vs. 0.59%; p < 0.01), but not in dabigatran-treated patients (0.88 vs. 0.91%; p = 1.0) or rivaroxaban-treated patients (2.9 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.06). The risk for thromboembolism did not differ according to surgery/procedure-related bleed risk. Conclusion Our results suggest that in DOAC-treated patients who received standardized perioperative management, surgical bleed risk is an important determinant of bleeding but not thromboembolic outcomes, although this finding was not consistent across all DOACs. There were no differences in bleeding and thromboembolism according to DOAC type and dose, renal function, or age.

Predictors of preprocedural direct oral anticoagulant levels in patients having an elective surgery or procedure.

The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study prospectively evaluated a prespecified periprocedural-interruption strategy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify clinical parameters associated with residual DOAC levels ≥30 ng/mL or ≥50 ng/mL. Patients undergoing low-bleed-risk procedures were more likely to have residual levels of ≥30 ng/mL and ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, age ≥75 years, female sex, a creatinine clearance (CrCl) <50 mL/min, and an interruption of <36 hours were associated with a greater likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas age ≥75 years, female sex, a CrCl of <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For high-risk procedures, weight of <70 kg, CrCl <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with residual levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas female sex was associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, apixaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with dabigatran (P = .0019) and of levels ≥50 ng/mL when compared with rivaroxaban (P = .0003). For high-risk procedures, apixaban was marginally associated with a higher likelihood of residual levels ≥30 ng/mL when compared with dabigatran (P = .05), whereas rivaroxaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with apixaban. Further study is required to determine whether adjustments to perioperative plans based on these clinical parameters could result in a lower risk of residual DOAC levels. The PAUSE trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT2228798.

Perioperative Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who use a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and request elective surgery or procedure present a common clinical situation yet perioperative management is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of a standardized perioperative DOAC management strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) cohort study conducted at 23 clinical centers in Canada, the United States, and Europe enrolled and screened patients from August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2018. Participants (n = 3007) had AF; were 18 years of age or older; were long-term users of apixaban, dabigatran etexilate, or rivaroxaban; were scheduled for an elective surgery or procedure; and could adhere to the DOAC therapy interruption protocol. INTERVENTIONS: A simple standardized perioperative DOAC therapy interruption and resumption strategy based on DOAC pharmacokinetic properties, procedure-associated bleeding risk, and creatinine clearance levels. The DOAC regimens were omitted for 1 day before a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 days before a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The DOAC regimens were resumed 1 day after a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 to 3 days after a high-bleeding-risk procedure. Follow-up of patients occurred for 30 days after the operation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and the proportion of patients with an undetectable or minimal residual anticoagulant level (<50 ng/mL) at the time of the procedure. RESULTS: The 3007 patients with AF (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [9.39] years; 1988 men [66.1%]) comprised 1257 (41.8%) in the apixaban cohort, 668 (22.2%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1082 (36.0%) in the rivaroxaban cohort; 1007 patients (33.5%) had a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The 30-day postoperative rate of major bleeding was 1.35% (95% CI, 0%-2.00%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.90% (95% CI, 0%-1.73%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1.85% (95% CI, 0%-2.65%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. The rate of arterial thromboembolism was 0.16% (95% CI, 0%-0.48%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.60% (95% CI, 0%-1.33%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 0.37% (95% CI, 0%-0.82%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. In patients with a high-bleeding-risk procedure, the rates of major bleeding were 2.96% (95% CI, 0%-4.68%) in the apixaban cohort and 2.95% (95% CI, 0%-4.76%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, patients with AF who had DOAC therapy interruption for elective surgery or procedure, a perioperative management strategy without heparin bridging or coagulation function testing was associated with low rates of major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism.

The Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) Study for Patients on a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Who Need an Elective Surgery or Procedure: Design and Rationale.

Background The perioperative management of patients who take a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for atrial fibrillation and require treatment interruption for an elective surgery/procedure is a common clinical scenario for which best practices are uncertain. The Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study is designed to address this unmet clinical need. We discuss the rationale for the PAUSE design and analysis plan as well as the rationale supporting the perioperative DOAC protocol. Methods PAUSE is a prospective study with three parallel cohorts, one for each DOAC, to assess a standardized but patient-specific perioperative management protocol for DOAC-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. The perioperative protocol accounts for DOAC type, patient's renal function and surgery/procedure-related bleeding risk. The primary study aim is to demonstrate the safety of the PAUSE protocol for the perioperative management of each DOAC. The secondary aim is to determine the effect of the pre-procedure interruption on residual anticoagulation when measured by the dilute thrombin time for dabigatran and anti-factor Xa levels for rivaroxaban and apixaban. The study hypothesis is that the perioperative management protocol for each DOAC is safe for patient care, defined by expected risks for major bleeding of 1% (80% power to exclude 2%), and for arterial thromboembolism of 0.5% (80% power to exclude 1.5%) in each DOAC group. Conclusion The PAUSE study has the potential to establish a standard-of-care approach for the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients. The PAUSE management protocol is designed to be easily applied in clinical practice, as it is standardized and also patient specific.