Heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia (ALIFE2): an international open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia. We aimed to assess use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus standard care in this population. METHODS: The ALIFE2 trial was an international open-label, randomised controlled trial undertaken in hospitals in the UK (n=26), the Netherlands (n=10), the USA (n=2), Belgium (n=1), and Slovenia (n=1). Women aged 18-42 years who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia, and who were trying to conceive or were already pregnant (≤7 weeks' gestation), were eligible for inclusion. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to use low-dose LMWH or not (alongside standard care in both groups) once they had a positive urine pregnancy test. LMWH was started at or before 7 weeks' gestation and continued until the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was livebirth rate, assessed in all women with available data. Safety outcomes included bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, and skin reactions, and were assessed in all randomly assigned women who reported a safety event. The trial was registered within the Dutch Trial Register (NTR3361) and EudraCT (UK: 2015-002357-35). FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2012, and Jan 30, 2021, 10 625 women were assessed for eligibility, 428 were registered, and 326 conceived and were randomly assigned (164 to LMWH and 162 to standard care). 116 (72%) of 162 women with primary outcome data in the LMWH group and 112 (71%) of 158 in the standard care group had livebirths (adjusted odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·78; absolute risk difference, 0·7%, 95% CI -9·2% to 10·6%). 39 (24%) of 164 women in the LMWH group and 37 (23%) of 162 women in the standard care group reported adverse events. INTERPRETATION: LMWH did not result in higher livebirth rates in women who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia. We do not advise use of LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia, and we advise against screening for inherited thrombophilia in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. PATIENTS/METHODS: Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models. RESULTS: A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51-0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03-2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5-22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5-36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and antithrombotic agents-lessons after 1 year.

COVID-19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic complications, which can be explained by the complex and unique interplay between coronaviruses and endothelial cells, the local and systemic inflammatory response, and the coagulation system. Empirically, an intensified dose of thrombosis prophylaxis is being used in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and several guidelines on this topic have been published, although the insufficiency of high quality and direct evidence has led to weak recommendations. In this Viewpoint we summarise the pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy in the context of patients who are ambulant, admitted to hospital, and critically ill or non-critically ill, and those post-discharge from hospital. We also review data from randomised controlled trials in the past year of antithrombotic therapy in patients who are critically ill. These data provide the first high-quality evidence on optimal use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with COVID-19. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for patients who are ambulant and post-discharge. A first ever trial in non-critically ill patients who were admitted to hospital has shown that a therapeutic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin might improve clinical outcomes in this population. In critically ill patients, this same treatment does not improve outcomes and prophylactic dose anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis is recommended. In the upcoming months we expect numerous data from the ongoing antithrombotic COVID-19 studies to guide clinicians at different stages of the disease.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to systemic coagulation activation and thrombotic complications. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Single-center cohort study of 198 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (38%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). At time of data collection, 16 (8%) were still hospitalized and 19% had died. During a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR, 3-13), 39 patients (20%) were diagnosed with VTE of whom 25 (13%) had symptomatic VTE, despite routine thrombosis prophylaxis. The cumulative incidences of VTE at 7, 14 and 21 days were 16% (95% CI, 10-22), 33% (95% CI, 23-43) and 42% (95% CI 30-54) respectively. For symptomatic VTE, these were 10% (95% CI, 5.8-16), 21% (95% CI, 14-30) and 25% (95% CI 16-36). VTE appeared to be associated with death (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.02-5.5). The cumulative incidence of VTE was higher in the ICU (26% (95% CI, 17-37), 47% (95% CI, 34-58), and 59% (95% CI, 42-72) at 7, 14 and 21 days) than on the wards (any VTE and symptomatic VTE 5.8% (95% CI, 1.4-15), 9.2% (95% CI, 2.6-21), and 9.2% (2.6-21) at 7, 14, and 21 days). CONCLUSIONS: The observed risk for VTE in COVID-19 is high, particularly in ICU patients, which should lead to a high level of clinical suspicion and low threshold for diagnostic imaging for DVT or PE. Future research should focus on optimal diagnostic and prophylactic strategies to prevent VTE and potentially improve survival.