To prophylax or not, and how much and how long? Controversies in VTE prevention for medical inpatients, including COVID-19 inpatients

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.

Oral Anticoagulants Beyond Warfarin

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists, mostly warfarin, for the main indications for oral anticoagulation, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, and prevention of embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation. While DOACs offer practical, fixed-dose anticoagulation in many patients, specific restrictions or contraindications may apply. DOACs are not sufficiently effective in high-thrombotic risk conditions such as antiphospholipid syndrome and mechanical heart valves. Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis may benefit from DOACs, but the bleeding risk, particularly in those with gastrointestinal or urogenital tumors, must be carefully weighed. In patients with frailty, excess body weight, and/or moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, DOACs must be cautiously administered and may require laboratory monitoring. Reversal agents have been developed and approved for life-threatening bleeding. In addition, the clinical testing of potentially safer anticoagulants such as factor XI(a) inhibitors is important to further optimize anticoagulant therapy in an increasingly elderly and frail population worldwide.

Low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of clinical worsening in severe non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a joint analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) carries a high risk of vascular thrombosis. However, whether a specific anticoagulation intensity strategy may prevent clinical worsening in severe COVID-19 patients is still debated. We conducted a joint analysis of two randomized controlled trials, COVID-19 HD (NCT044082359) and EMOS-COVID (NCT04646655), to assess the efficacy and safety of two anticoagulant regimens in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients. Subjects with COVID-19-associated respiratory compromise and/or coagulopathy were randomly assigned to low (4000 IU qd) or high (70 IU Kg-1 every 12 h) enoxaparin dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical worsening within 30 days, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events, whichever came first: in-hospital death, evidence of arterial or venous thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction, need for either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients receiving standard oxygen therapy or none at randomization, and need for mechanical ventilation in any patient. The safety endpoint was major bleeding. We estimated the relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes. Among 283 patients included in the study (144 in the low-dose and 139 in the high-dose group), 118 (41.7%) were on NIV or CPAP at randomization. 23/139 (16.5%) patients in the high-dose group reached the primary endpoint compared to 33/144 (22.9%) in the low-dose group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45-1.17). No major bleeding was observed. No significant differences were found in the clinical worsening of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with high versus low doses of enoxaparin.