Stopping anticoagulation for isolated or incidental pulmonary embolism: the STOPAPE RCT protocol.

Research question: Is withholding anticoagulation for patients with isolated or incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism clinically and cost-effective compared with full anticoagulation for 3 months? Background: There has been an increase in the diagnosis of subsegmental pulmonary embolism since the advent of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram to investigate patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Subsegmental pulmonary embolism is not often detectable with older nuclear medicine-based diagnostic imaging for ventilation/perfusion mismatch. The case fatality of pulmonary embolism has reduced as subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnoses from computed tomography pulmonary angiogram have increased. There is growing equipoise about the optimal treatment for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism, given that full anticoagulation has significant risks of bleeding and subsegmental pulmonary embolism was not often diagnosed previously with ventilation/perfusion scanning and therefore most likely left predominantly untreated prior to the introduction of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram scanning. Objectives: Determine whether withholding anticoagulation for isolated or incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism (i.e. subsegmental pulmonary embolism with no coexisting deep-vein thrombosis) reduces the harms of recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding compared with 3 months of full anticoagulation at 3, 6 and 12 months. Determine the rate of complications of anticoagulation therapy (predominantly bleeding) in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Determine whether not treating isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism is acceptable to clinicians and patients. Determine the reclassification rate of subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnoses made by general reporting radiologists when reviewed by specialist respiratory radiologists and develop a set of rules to improve general radiologists' diagnoses of subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Assess cost-effectiveness of not treating patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism with anticoagulation, taking a health service perspective. Methods: Prospective individually randomised open controlled trial with blinded end-point committee assessment for outcomes, powered for non-inferiority for recurrent venous thromboembolism and for superiority for bleeding events. An internal pilot phase is included for feasibility and acceptability of no anticoagulation. We planned to recruit 1466 patients from at least 50 acute hospital sites. Allowing for a dropout rate of 15%, this would have given us 90% power to detect a reduction in major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding from 7.3% in the anticoagulation arm to 3% in the intervention arm. We were powered to determine that a strategy of no anticoagulation was non-inferior to anticoagulation with an upper margin of a 2.3% increase in recurrent venous thromboembolism from an expected rate of 2% in those who receive full anticoagulation. We also planned to undertake a study comparing acute reporting radiologists' diagnoses of subsegmental pulmonary embolism from all computed tomography pulmonary angiograms with specialist respiratory radiologists. This would have allowed us to determine safety in the pilot study (i.e. patients with pulmonary embolism that was in fact larger than subsegmental would have been identified) and develop guidance for subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosis for general radiologists. Patients with lived experience of thrombosis contributed to all aspects of the trial design and were part of the Trial Management Group. Progress of study: The STOPAPE trial was stopped prematurely due to a low recruitment rate in the wake of the COVID pandemic and prioritisation of recovery of the National Institute for Health and Care Research research portfolio. There are no outcome data available for this trial. Separate NIHR Library publications will detail the linked qualitative study examining the views of patients and clinicians around withholding anticoagulation for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism as well as presenting all collected data of recruited patients. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128073. A plain language summary of this research article is available on the NIHR Journals Library Website https://doi.org/10.3310/HRCW7937.

Pulmonary embolism is a potentially serious condition, whereby blood clots cause a blockage of the blood supply to the lungs. The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is made with a scan of the lungs, by showing areas where blood cannot get through the vessels easily due to blood clots. The treatment of pulmonary embolism includes anticoagulant medication ('blood thinners') that is taken over months and includes warfarin, an injectable form of heparin and directly acting oral anticoagulants. These medications work by preventing new clots from forming while the body's own mechanisms break down the clots. As the scanning technology for pulmonary embolism has become more sensitive, smaller clots are being diagnosed. However, small pulmonary embolisms may not cause any symptoms and may be found incidentally on scans performed for other reasons. In these situations, it is unclear whether treatment is required for the pulmonary embolism. These clots in smaller blood vessels away from the centre of the lungs (subsegmental pulmonary embolism) may be removed by the body's own mechanisms for dissolving clots without needing medications. Anticoagulant medication can cause side effects in some patients such as bleeding. For the anticoagulant medication to be appropriate in these smaller pulmonary embolisms, the benefits from preventing future blood clots (pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis) would need to outweigh the potential risks from the medication side effects. The STOPAPE study aimed to answer this question by testing whether we can safely withhold anticoagulation from patients diagnosed with subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Although we aimed to enrol 1466 patients in the trial with half getting usual care of anticoagulation and half getting no anticoagulation, we could not recruit patients quickly enough to the trial and, as a result, we could not continue with the STOPAPE study. This study protocol is published to help future research teams that wish to answer this research question.

Implementation of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin with point-of-care genetic testing in three UK clinics: a matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is a widely used oral anticoagulant. Determining the correct dose required to maintain the international normalised ratio (INR) within a therapeutic range can be challenging. In a previous trial, we showed that a dosing algorithm incorporating point-of-care genotyping information ('POCT-GGD' approach) led to improved anticoagulation control. To determine whether this approach could translate into clinical practice, we undertook an implementation project using a matched cohort design. METHODS: At three clinics (implementation group; n = 119), initial doses were calculated using the POCT-GGD approach; at another three matched clinics (control group; n = 93), patients were dosed according to the clinic's routine practice. We also utilised data on 640 patients obtained from routinely collected data at comparable clinics. Primary outcome was percentage time in target INR range. Patients and staff from the implementation group also provided questionnaire feedback on POCT-GGD. RESULTS: Mean percentage time in INR target range was 55.25% in the control group and 62.74% in the implementation group; therefore, 7.49% (95% CI 3.41-11.57%) higher in the implementation group (p = 0.0004). Overall, patients and staff viewed POCT-GGD positively, suggesting minor adjustments to allow smooth implementation into practice. CONCLUSIONS: In the first demonstration of the implementation of genotype-guided dosing, we show that warfarin dosing determined using an algorithm incorporating genetic and clinical factors can be implemented smoothly into clinic, to ensure target INR range is reached sooner and maintained. The findings are like our previous randomised controlled trial, providing an alternative method for improving the risk-benefit of warfarin use in daily practice.