The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled an international working group of venous thromboembolism experts and patient representatives to develop a standardised minimum... Show moreThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled an international working group of venous thromboembolism experts and patient representatives to develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes and outcome measurements for integration into clinical practice and potentially research to support clinical decision making and benchmarking of quality of care. 15 core outcomes important to patients and health-care professionals were selected and categorised into four domains: patient-reported outcomes, long term consequences of the disease, disease-specific complications, and treatment-related complications. The outcomes and outcome measures were designed to apply to all patients with venous thromboembolism aged 16 years or older. A measurement tool package was selected for inclusion in the core standard set, with a minimum number of items to be measured at predefined timepoints, which capture all core outcomes. Additional measures can be introduced to the user by a cascade opt-in system that allows for further assessment if required. This set of outcomes and measurement tools will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centred outcomes in daily practice. Show less
Background Best practice for prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown due to limited published data in... Show moreBackground Best practice for prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown due to limited published data in this population. Objectives We aimed to assess current global practice and experience in management of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy to identify information to guide prospective and randomized studies. Methods Physicians were queried about their current approach to prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19 using an online survey tool distributed through multiple international organizations between April 10 and 14, 2020. Results Five hundred fifteen physicians from 41 countries responded. The majority of respondents (78%) recommended prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with most recommending use of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. Significant practice variation was found regarding the need for dose escalation of anticoagulation outside the setting of confirmed or suspected VTE. Respondents reported the use of bedside testing when unable to perform standard diagnostic imaging for diagnosis of VTE. Two hundred ninety-one respondents reported observing thrombotic complications in their patients, with 64% noting that the complication was pulmonary embolism. Of the 44% of respondents who estimated incidence of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 in their hospital, estimates ranged widely from 1% to 50%. One hundred seventy-four respondents noted bleeding complications (34% minor bleeding, 14% clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and 12% major bleeding). Conclusion Well-designed epidemiologic studies are urgently needed to understand the incidence and risk factors of VTE and bleeding complications in patients with COVID-19. Randomized clinical trials addressing use of anticoagulation are also needed. Show less
Giustozzi, M.; Agnelli, G.; Toro-Cervera, J. del; Klok, F.A.; Rosovsky, R.P.; Martin, A.C.; ... ; Huisman, M.V. 2020
Background International guidelines have endorsed the use of edoxaban or rivaroxaban as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE)... Show moreBackground International guidelines have endorsed the use of edoxaban or rivaroxaban as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial of apixaban versus dalteparin in patients with cancer was completed. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated VTE. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were systematically searched up to March 30, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs versus LMWH for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. The two coprimary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 6 months. Data were pooled by the Mantel-Haenszel method and compared by relative risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Four randomized controlled studies (2,894 patients) comparing apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban with dalteparin were included in the meta-analysis. Recurrent VTE occurred in 75 of 1,446 patients (5.2%) treated with oral factor Xa inhibitors and in 119 of 1,448 patients (8.2%) treated with LMWH (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.91;I-2, 30%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 (4.3%) and 48 (3.3%) patients receiving oral factor Xa inhibitors or LMWH, respectively (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.83-2.08;I-2, 23%). Conclusion In patients with cancer-associated VTE, oral factor Xa inhibitors reduced the risk of recurrent VTE without a significantly higher likelihood of major bleeding at 6 months compared with LMWH. Show less
Introduction: We recently proposed a scale for assessment of patient-relevant functional limitations following an episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Further development of this post-VTE... Show moreIntroduction: We recently proposed a scale for assessment of patient-relevant functional limitations following an episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Further development of this post-VTE functional status (PVFS) scale is still needed.Methods: Guided by the input of VTE experts and patients, we refined the PVFS scale and its accompanying manual, and attempted to acquire broad consensus on its use.Results: A Delphi analysis was performed involving 53 international VTE experts with diverse scientific and clinical backgrounds. In this process, the number of scale grades of the originally proposed PVFS scale was reduced and descriptions of the grades were improved. After these changes, a consensus was reached on the number/definitions of the grades, and method/timing of the scale assessment. The relevance and potential impact of the scale was confirmed in three focus groups totaling 18 VTE patients, who suggested additional changes to the manual, but not to the scale itself. Using the improved manual, the.-statistics between PVFS scale self-reporting and its assessment via the structured interview was 0.75 (95%CI 0.58-1.0), and 1.0 (95%CI 0.83-1.0) between independent raters of the recorded interview of 16 focus groups members.Conclusion: We improved the PVFS scale and demonstrated broad consensus on its relevance, optimal grades, and methods of assessing among international VTE experts and patients. The interobserver agreement of scale grade assignment was shown to be good-to-excellent. The PVFS scale may become an important outcome measure of functional impairment for quality of patient care and in future VTE trials. Show less
