Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Patients with Thrombocytopenia or with Platelet Dysfunction: The Last 10 Years

Current guideline recommendations for primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are based on randomized clinical trials that usually exclude subjects at a potentially high risk of bleeding complications. For this reason, no specific guideline is available for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with thrombocytopenia and/or platelet dysfunction. However, except in patients with absolute contraindications to anticoagulant drugs, antithrombotic prophylaxis should always be considered, for example, in hospitalized cancer patients with thrombocytopenia, especially in those with multiple VTE risk factors. Low platelet number, platelet dysfunction, and clotting abnormalities are also very common in patients with liver cirrhosis, but these patients have a high incidence of portal venous thrombosis, implying that cirrhotic coagulopathy does not fully protect against thrombosis. These patients may benefit from antithrombotic prophylaxis during hospitalization. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 need prophylaxis, but frequently experience thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. In patients with antiphospholipid antibodies, a high thrombotic risk is usually present, even in the presence of thrombocytopenia. VTE prophylaxis in high-risk conditions is thus suggested in these patients. At variance with severe thrombocytopenia (< 50,000/mm3), mild/moderate thrombocytopenia (≥ 50,000/mm3) should not interfere with VTE prevention decisions. In patients with severe thrombocytopenia, pharmacological prophylaxis should be considered on an individual basis. Aspirin is not as effective as heparins in lowering the risk of VTE. Studies in patients with ischemic stroke demonstrated that thromboprophylaxis with heparins is safe in these patients also during antiplatelet treatment. The use of direct oral anticoagulants in the prophylaxis of VTE in internal medicine patients has been recently evaluated, but no specific recommendation exists for patients with thrombocytopenia. The need for VTE prophylaxis in patients on chronic treatment with antiplatelet agents should be evaluated after assessing the individual risk of bleeding complications. Finally, the selection of patients who require post-discharge pharmacological prophylaxis remains debated. New molecules currently under development (such as the inhibitors of factor XI) may contribute to improve the risk/benefit ratio of VTE primary prevention in this setting of patients.

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis protocol in hematopoietic cell transplant patients

Hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients are at risk for thromboembolic and bleeding complications. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal approach to managing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing HCT. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the incidence of bleeding and VTE events in hospitalized HCT patients who received VTE prophylaxis per our institution's VTE Prophylaxis Protocol (VPP), with either enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously daily or heparin 5 000 units subcutaneously twice daily, compared to historical controls who did not receive VTE prophylaxis. The primary outcome was a composite of major bleeding events, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and minor bleeding. The secondary outcome was a composite of VTE events. A total of 614 patients were evaluated, including 278 prior to and 336 after implementation of VPP. VTE prophylaxis resulted in no difference in bleeding events (15.1% in the pre-VPP group vs. 14.6% in the post-VPP group, p = 0.86) or composite of major and CRNMB events (0.72% vs. 0.30%, p = 0.59). There was a trend toward lower incidence of VTE events in the post-VPP group which did not reach statistical significance (8.6% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.20). We conclude that VTE prophylaxis does not pose additional bleeding risk in HCT patients.

Bio-Inspired Proanthocyanidins from Blueberries’ Surface Coating Prevents Red Blood Cell Agglutination on Urinary Silicon-Based Catheters

Thrombosis can cause the occlusion of implantable medical devices, leading to the rejection of the device and subsequent mortality. Thrombosis is primarily induced by red blood aggregation and coagulation. The administration of anticoagulant drugs is generally used as a treatment to avoid these processes. Adverse effects such as bleeding in the event of an anticoagulant overdose, osteoporosis associated with prolonged use, hypersensitivity, and hives have been reported. New strategies such as biomolecule surface functionalization have recently been studied to overcome these problems. In this study, we report a novel coating composed of polydopamine (PDA) and proanthocyanidins (PACs) from blueberry extract to avoid red blood aggregation in short-term use medical devices such as silicone catheters. We showed that PDA formed stable films on silicone surfaces and PACs could be immobilized on PDA layers using laccase as a catalyst. The PDA–PACs films decreased surface hydrophilicity, increased surface roughness, and decreased plasma protein adsorption. The films were stable in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) and cell culture media. Furthermore, red blood cell adsorption and aggregation decreased. These effects are attributed to changes in the membrane fluidity that influences adhesion, the steric hindrance of the layers, and the low adsorption of plasma proteins on the PAC layer.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Arterial thromboembolism, including myocardial infarction and stroke, is also prevalent. Risk differs in subgroups, with higher rates observed in specific cancers including pancreas, stomach, and multiple myeloma. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for most patients with active cancer hospitalized for medical illnesses and after major cancer surgery. Outpatient thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended, but emerging data suggest that a high-risk population that benefits from pharmacological thromboprophylaxis can be identified using a validated risk tool. Direct oral anticoagulants are emerging as the preferred new option for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, although low-molecular-weight heparin remains a standard for patients at high bleeding risk. Management of VTE beyond the first 6 months and challenging clinical situations including intracranial metastases and thrombocytopenia require careful management in balancing the benefits and risks of anticoagulation and remain major knowledge gaps in evidence.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A New Light on an Old Story

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a rising and significant phenomenon, becoming the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Pathophysiology of CAT differs from thrombosis in the non-cancer population. There are additional risk factors for thrombosis specific to cancer including cancer type, histology, and treatment, such as chemotherapy. Recently developed scoring systems use these risk factors to stratify the degree of risk and encourage thromboprophylaxis in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Anticoagulation is safely used for prophylaxis and treatment of CAT. Both of these have largely been with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), rather than the vitamin K antagonist (VKA); however, there has been increasing evidence for direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use. Consequently, international guidelines have also adapted to recommend the role of DOACs in CAT. Using DOACs is a turning point for CAT, but further research is warranted for their long-term risk profile. This review will discuss mechanisms, risk factors, prophylaxis and management of CAT, including both LMWH and DOACs. There will also be a comparison of current international guidelines and how they reflect the growing evidence base.

Advances in Supportive Care for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Tremendous advances have been made in the treatment armamentarium for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in recent years, which have substantially improved outcomes for these patients. At the same time, unique toxicities have emerged, and without early intervention, are life-threatening. This article will review the novel therapies in acute leukemias and highlight the clinically relevant supportive care advances.

RECENT FINDINGS

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has put forth the most recent recommendations in managing the cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity after chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) and blinatumomab. The hepatic injury incurred by inotuzumab, and the vascular toxicity of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, other relatively novel agents, require subspecialist intervention and multidisciplinary care. Asparaginase, a long-established and key element of pediatric regimens, has made a comeback in the young adult leukemia population. Updated guidelines have been outlined for management of asparaginase thrombotic complications. Lastly, although there have been few changes in the applications of growth factor, antimicrobial prophylaxis, and management of neuropathy, these encompass exceedingly important aspects of care. While the rapidly changing treatment paradigms for acute lymphoblastic leukemia have transformed leukemia-specific outcomes, treatment emergent toxicities have forced much necessary attention to better definitions of these toxicities and on improving supportive care guidelines in acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Update on Guidelines for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Over the past 2 decades, enormous advances have been made in the management of CAT. The growing evidence base informing practice has led to the publication of a number of guidelines and guidance documents on the diagnosis and treatment of CAT. The goal of this review is to examine the latest versions of evidence-based guidelines, highlighting the differences and similarities in their methodology, their disease-specific content, and recommendations for management. Our analysis shows that for most clinical topics, the different guidelines provide roughly similar management advice. However, there are a number of important clinical topics in CAT that are not currently covered by the existing guidelines. We think inclusion of these topics in future versions of the guidelines will facilitate ongoing efforts to optimize the care of patients with CAT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in patients with cancer. This review examines the differences and similarities of the current CAT guidelines methods and recommendations. Current guidelines largely agree on many aspects of CAT management. However, there are a number of topics in CAT that are not currently included in guidelines where evidence-based guidance would be very helpful for clinicians. Coverage of these topics in future guidelines is encouraged to optimize clinical practice.

Prescribing patterns and outcomes of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical and cancer patients: Observations from the Ottawa Hospital

Guidelines suggest broad use of pharmacologic prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients, however little 'real-world' data exists to support this. Our goal was to describe the use of thromboprophylaxis among general medical and cancer patients admitted to hospital, compare VTE and bleeding outcomes according to use of thromboprophylaxis, and to determine what variables influence prescribing patterns and outcomes. Patients admitted to the general medical and oncology services at The Ottawa Hospital between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed and classified according to whether they received initial, delayed, or no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during their first hospitalization. Patients with an alternate indication for anticoagulation or those admitted with a bleeding event were excluded from analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was any symptomatic VTE during index hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge, and the primary safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding during the index hospitalization. 17,262 patients were included in our final analysis. General medical patients selected to receive no, initial, or delayed thromboprophylaxis had 0.4%, 0.7%, and 2.4% rates of VTE; and 0.2%, 0.7%, and 1.5% rates of clinically relevant bleeding complications, respectively. Cancer patients had significantly higher rates of VTE: 3.3%, 3.9%, and 5.0%; and 0.9%, 0.7%, and 3.0% rates of clinically relevant bleeding among those selected to receive no, initial, or delayed thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Overall, our study suggests that broad use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may be unnecessary in select low-risk general medical patients and may be less effective in cancer patients in whom new studies are indicated.

Prophylaxis of thromboembolism during therapy with asparaginase in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.

Universal venous thromboembolism policy is effective but may not adequately protect hospitalized cancer patients with larger BMI

Routine VTE prophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients, but its effectiveness and safety in cancer patients is unclear. By observation, larger patients seemed poorly covered by the prophylaxis policy. The effectiveness and safety of VTE prophylaxis policy in the hospitalized patients, their potential risk factors such as BMI were examined. A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine VTE incidences, risk factors for VTE and major bleeding events between 2007 and 2016 on the solid tumor units (STU). Patients were divided into pre-policy (Pre-2012) or post-policy implementation groups (Post-2012). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis, while propensity score matching (1:3, VTE:Non-VTE) was used to reduce selection bias. The VTE incidence per patient was 1.30% (57/4392) pre-policy and 0.56% (18/3210) post-policy (p value = 0.0013). After propensity score matching, a reduction (32.3%) of VTE cases was observed after policy implementation (OR = 0.677, p = 0.32). BMI was found to be a significant predictor of VTE (OR = 1.094, 95% CI 1.021-1.172, p = 0.011). Between July 2014 and July 2016, 1.7% (19/1091) patients who received anticoagulants had a documented bleeding event. The policy positively impacted VTE events on the STU. A significant predictor of VTE was BMI and patients with high BMI may pose a risk of breaking through standard VTE prophylaxis dosing. There was no reported major bleeding for patients who developed an VTE event despite receiving prophylaxis in either the pre-policy or post-policy phase of the study, although a low incidence of minor bleeding was documented in the post-phase.

Inpatient prophylaxis in cancer patients: where is the evidence?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable in-hospital mortality. Cancer is associated with an increased risk of VTE which is further compounded by acute hospitalization for medical illness. The absolute incidence of VTE of hospitalized cancer patients ranges between 2% and 17% but the rates vary considerably depending on the type of study, method of VTE surveillance and whether pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is administered. Complicating the interpretation of thromboprophylaxis trials is the paucity of reported data on the relative benefit of thromboprophylaxis relative to an increased risk of hemorrhage inherent to cancer patients. Efforts over the last decade have improved the rates of adherence to in-hospital pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis regimens. Whether these efforts also improve outcomes continues to be debated. In this review, the prevalence of VTE and hemorrhage in hospitalized cancer patients is presented in the context of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis data along with a discussion of emerging approaches towards VTE risk-adapted prescription of antithrombotics during hospitalization.

The prevention and management of asparaginase-related venous thromboembolism in adults: Guidance from the SSC on Hemostasis and Malignancy of the ISTH

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Thrombosis associated with asparaginase administration poses a number of specific and often clinically challenging management decisions. This review provides guidance on the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with asparaginase in adults including discussions on antithrombin repletion, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, cerebral venous thrombosis, and therapeutic anticoagulation.

Quality Appraisal of Guidelines on Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Using AGREE II Instrument and Analysis of Current Status of New Oral Anticoagulants

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) studies have increased in recent years and the quality of guidelines to guide the clinical practice of CAT prevention and treatment becomes crucial. The therapy status of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has been established in some thrombotic diseases, but the evidence for CAT remains unconvincing. The aim of this research is to evaluate the quality of CAT guidelines and discuss the role of NOAC in CAT. A search of articles was performed using PubMed/Medline, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other authoritative websites. Search terms included guideline or guidance, consensuses, cancer, and thrombosis. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the qualities of the guidelines. A total of 19 guidelines were screened out and evaluated, of which 8 were recommended, 5 were recommended after revision, and 6 were not recommended. For prevention and treatment of CAT, low-molecular-weight heparin is the most recommended, followed by vitamin K antagonist, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux, and aspirin. New oral anticoagulant is optional in some cases of CAT treatment. Based on AGREE II assessment tool, the quality of CAT guidelines is inconsistent. Attention should be drawn to the quality of CAT guidelines during clinical practice. The role of NOAC in the treatment of CAT is gradually established but requires more supporting evidence from future clinical trials.

Risk of Thrombosis in Cancer: Clinical Factors and Role of Primary Prophylaxis

Cancer and its treatments are commonly complicated by venous thromboembolism (VTE), but there is a substantial variation in risk between individual cancer patients. The risk of VTE in cancer patients is influenced by multiple risk factors including primary site of cancer, stage, comorbidities, use of specific antineoplastic agents. Several biomarkers have been associated with subsequent VTE including D-dimer and tissue factor, although no single risk factor or biomarker accurately is predictive of VTE on its own. The risk of VTE is best predicted by a validated risk assessment score. Cancer patients at risk of VTE benefit from thromboprophylaxis, supported by evidence in the setting of hospitalization for acute medical illness and surgery, and emerging data from two large randomized trials in the outpatient setting. This chapter focuses on approaches to identifying risk of VTE and approaches to reducing this risk with appropriate thromboprophylaxis.

Position paper of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine (SIMI) on prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Cancer patients are at high risk of developing thrombotic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) [deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], and arterial thrombosis. DVT and PE represent the second leading cause of death in cancer patients; moreover, the development of thromboembolic events in cancer patients is linked to a greater need of hospitalization and frequency of side effects during treatment, in particular bleeding, and to an increased risk of recurrence during and following antithrombotic therapy. The thromboembolic risk may be different in different subgroups of cancer population, being highest in patients with metastatic disease, patients with pancreas, stomach, kidney or primary brain cancer, or during therapeutic interventions or surgery. This document focuses on several relevant topics including the epidemiology and pathogenesis of cancer-associated VTE, the current and future strategies of primary prevention and anticoagulant treatment, and the management of bleeding complications. The main literature data are discussed in detail, including, when available, evidence from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, international guidelines statements, the results of recently published trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low molecular weight heparin, and the design and aims of ongoing trials on prevention/treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients, can we do better?

Patients with cancer are at a much higher risk of thromboembolic events. Such events are occasionally associated with significant complications that can negatively affect patients' quality of life. Thromboprophylaxis is widely practiced, but much of the emphasis is given for those admitted with acute medical illnesses or following major surgical procedures. However, a significant percentage of thrombotic events encountered in routine clinical practice are among ambulatory patients where current guidelines do not recommend routine thromboprophylaxis.

The Application of Current Proposed Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model for Ambulatory Patients With Cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a commonly encountered problem in patients with cancer. In recent years, cancer treatment paradigm has shifted with most therapy offered in ambulatory outpatient settings. Excess of half VTEs in patients with cancer occur in outpatient settings without prior hospitalization, where current practice guidelines do not recommend routine prophylaxis. Risk assessment models (RAMs) for VTE in such patients were recently introduced. This study aims to assess the practical application of one of these models in clinical practice. Medical records and hospital electronic database were searched for patients with cancer having VTE. Known risk factors were collected, and risk assessment was done using the Khorana RAM. Over a 10-year period, 346 patients developed VTE in ambulatory settings. Median age was 57 and 59.0% were females. Lower extremities were involved in 196 (56.6%), while 96 (27.7%) had pulmonary embolism. Most (76.6%) patients had stage IV disease, only 9.0% had stage I or II disease. Only 156 (45.1%) patients were on active chemotherapy, for whom Khorana risk assessment score was calculated. In these patients, high risk was identified in 31 (19.9%) patients, while 81 (51.9%) had intermediate risk and 44 (28.2%) had low risk. No patients were on prophylaxis prior to VTE. Most ambulatory patients with cancer who developed VTE were not on chemotherapy, and many of those who were on active treatment had low Khorana risk scores. This illustrates the need to modify the model or develop a new one that takes into consideration this group of patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for prophylaxis of venous thomboembolism in cancer patients

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs 4-7 times more frequently in cancer patients as compared to non-cancer patients. A significant number of risk factors, which can be subcategorised as patient-, cancer- or treatment-related, have been shown to influence the risk of VTE during malignancy and further incorporated in risk-assessment models. Safe and efficient thromboprophylaxis regimens allow substantial decreased in VTE rates, since VTE is most often a largely preventable disease, but thromboprophylaxis remains underused in cancer compared to non-cancer patients. If thromboprophylaxis is warranted in cancer patients undergoing surgery or hospitalised for acute medical illness or with a lower mobility in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulants, its benefit remains controversial in outpatients and may be limited to locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic or lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer-CME free mobile app (ios and android), based on the International Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), facilitates their implementation and dissemination of knowledge worldwide so as to improve VTE treatment and prophylaxis in cancer patients.

Identifying predictors for bleeding in hospitalized cancer patients: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bleeding and thrombosis are both major complications of hospitalization in cancer patients. Concern regarding bleeding risk may reduce compliance with thromboprophylaxis. We assessed incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (MCRNMB) and identified risk factors associated with in-hospital bleeding risk in hospitalized cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults admitted to general oncology floor at Cleveland Clinic from 11/2012-12/2014 (n=3525). Patients were excluded for bleeding on admission (n=108), age<18 (n=1), non-malignant disease (n=2) and incomplete data (n=56). Data collected included demographics, body mass index (BMI), cancer type, length of stay (LOS), use of anticoagulants and baseline laboratory values (+48h). Univariate risk factors were identified with logistic regression analysis. Multivariable risk factors were identified with stepwise logistic regression and confirmed with bootstrap analysis.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 3358 patients of whom 69 (2.1%) developed MCRNMB. Median age was 62 (range, 19-98) years and 56% male. Median length of stay was 5 (range, 0-152) days. The majority of bleeding events were either gastrointestinal (GI) (N=23, 33%) or retroperitoneal (N=10, 14%). In multivariable analysis, anemia as the reason for admission (7.78, 95% CI 4.0-15.1, P<0.001), GI cancer site (2.96, 95% CI 1.7-5.2 P<0.001), BMI≥40 (3.08, 95% CI 1.3-2.9, P=0.008) and thrombocytopenia (1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.9, P=0.05) were predictive.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of MCRNMB in a population of hospitalized cancer patients was 2.1%. Risk factors at admission included type of cancer and morbid obesity. Improved prediction of bleeding risk can assist physicians in optimizing selection of thromboprophylaxis in this population that is also at increased risk of VTE.

Predicting risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cancer patients: Utility of a risk assessment tool

Inpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a priority preventable illness; risk in cancer varies and prophylaxis is inconsistently used. A previously validated tool (Khorana Score, [KS]) identifies VTE risk in cancer outpatients with 5 easily available variables but has not been studied in the inpatient setting. We evaluated the validity of KS in predicting VTE risk in hospitalized cancer patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive oncology inpatients at the Cleveland Clinic from 11/2012 to 12/2014 (n = 3531). Patients were excluded for VTE on admission (n = 304), incomplete KS data (n = 439) or other reasons (n = 8). Data collected included demographics, cancer type, length of stay (LOS), anticoagulant use, and laboratory values. Multivariate risk factors were identified with stepwise logistic regression, confirmed with bootstrap analysis. Of 2780 patients included, 106 (3.8%) developed VTE during hospitalization. Median age was 62 (range, 19-98) years and 56% were male. Median LOS was 5 (range, 0-152) days. High risk KS (≥ 3) was significantly associated with VTE in uni- and multivariate analyses (OR 2.5, 95% [confidence interval] CI 1.3-4.9). Other significant variables included male gender (OR 1.67, 1.1-2.53), older age (OR 0.86, 0.75-0.99) and use of anticoagulants (OR 0.57, 0.39-0.85). Recursive partitioning analysis suggested optimal cut point for KS is 2 (OR 1.82, 1.23-2.69). This is the first report validating KS as a risk tool to predict VTE in hospitalized cancer patients. Using this tool could lead to more consistent and successful application of inpatient thromboprophylaxis.

Bleeding risk of terminally ill patients hospitalized in palliative care units: the RHESO study

Essentials Bleeding incidence as hemorrhagic risk factors are unknown in palliative care inpatients. We conducted a multicenter observational study (22 Palliative Care Units, 1199 patients). At three months, the cumulative incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 9.8%. Cancer, recent bleeding, thromboprophylaxis and antiplatelet therapy were independent risk factors.

SUMMARY

Background The value of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients admitted to palliative care units is debatable. Moreover, the risk of bleeding in these patients is unknown. Objectives Our primary aim was to assess the bleeding risk of patients in a real-world practice setting of hospital palliative care. Our secondary aim was to determine the incidence of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and to identify risk factors for bleeding. Patients/Methods In this prospective, observational study in 22 French palliative care units, 1199 patients (median age, 71 years; male, 45.5%), admitted for the first time to a palliative care unit for advanced cancer or pulmonary, cardiac or neurologic disease were included. The primary outcome was adjudicated clinically relevant bleeding (i.e. a composite of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding) at 3 months. The secondary outcome was symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. Results The most common reason for palliative care was cancer (90.7%). By 3 months, 1087 patients (91.3%) had died and 116 patients had presented at least one episode of clinically relevant bleeding (fatal in 23 patients). Taking into account the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 9.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3-11.6). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in six patients (cumulative incidence, 0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1). Cancer, recent bleeding, antithrombotic prophylaxis and antiplatelet therapy were independently associated with clinically relevant bleeding at 3 months. Conclusions Decisions regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis in palliative care patients should take into account the high risk of bleeding in these patients.

VTE risk assessment in cancer. Who needs prophylaxis and who does not?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality, and its prevention is of major clinical importance. However, the VTE rates in the cancer population vary between 0.5% - 20%, depending on cancer-, treatment- and patient-related factors. The most important contributors to VTE risk are the tumor entity, stage and certain anti-cancer treatments. Cancer surgery represents a strong risk factor for VTE, and medical oncology patients are at increased risk of developing VTE, especially when receiving chemotherapy or immunomodulatory drugs. Also biomarkers have been investigated for their usefulness to predict risk of VTE (e.g. elevated leukocyte and platelet counts, soluble P-selectin, D-dimer, etc.). In order to identify cancer patients at high risk of VTE and to improve risk stratification, risk assessment models have been developed, which contain both clinical parameters and biomarkers. While primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) is recommended postoperatively for a period of up to 4 weeks after major cancer surgery, the evidence is less clear for medical oncology patients. Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical oncology patients is advocated, and is based on results of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy and safety of LMWH for prevention of VTE in hospitalized medically ill patients. In recent trials the benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting has been investigated. However, at the present stage primary thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in these patients is still a matter of debate and cannot be recommended for all cancer outpatients.