Provoked vs minimally provoked vs unprovoked VTE: does it matter?

Decision theoretical foundations of clinical practice guidelines: an extension of the ASH thrombophilia guidelines

ABSTRACT

Decision analysis can play an essential role in informing practice guidelines. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) thrombophilia guidelines have made a significant step forward in demonstrating how decision modeling integrated within Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Developing, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology can advance the field of guideline development. Although the ASH model was transparent and understandable, it does, however, suffer from certain limitations that may have generated potentially wrong recommendations. That is, the panel considered 2 models separately: after 3 to 6 months of index venous thromboembolism (VTE), the panel compared thrombophilia testing (A) vs discontinuing anticoagulants (B) and testing (A) vs recommending indefinite anticoagulation to all patients (C), instead of considering all relevant options simultaneously (A vs B vs C). Our study aimed to avoid what we refer to as the omitted choice bias by integrating 2 ASH models into a single unifying threshold decision model. We analyzed 6 ASH panel's recommendations related to the testing for thrombophilia in settings of "provoked" vs "unprovoked" VTE and low vs high bleeding risk (total 12 recommendations). Our model disagreed with the ASH guideline panels' recommendations in 4 of the 12 recommendations we considered. Considering all 3 options simultaneously, our model provided results that would have produced sounder recommendations for patient care. By revisiting the ASH guidelines methodology, we have not only improved the recommendations for thrombophilia but also provided a method that can be easily applied to other clinical problems and promises to improve the current guidelines' methodology.

Venous thromboembolism: diagnostic advances and unaddressed challenges in management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent advances in developing targeted diagnostics for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and unaddressed knowledge gaps in patient management. Without addressing these critical data needs, the morbidity in VTE patients will persist.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies investigating plasma protein profiles in VTE patients have identified key diagnostic targets to address the currently unmet need for low-cost, confirmatory, point-of-care VTE diagnostics. These studies and a growing body of evidence from animal model studies have revealed the importance of inflammatory and vascular pathology in driving VTE, which are currently unaddressed targets for VTE therapy. To enhance the translation of preclinical animal studies, clinical quantification of thrombus burden and comparative component analyses between modeled VTE and clinical VTE are necessary.

SUMMARY

Lead candidates from protein profiling of VTE patients' plasma offer a promising outlook in developing low cost, confirmatory, point-of-care testing for VTE. Additionally, addressing the critical knowledge gap of quantitatively measuring clinical thrombi will allow for an array of benefits in VTE management and informing the translatability of experimental therapeutics.

Biomarkers Profile in Provoked Versus Unprovoked Deep Venous Thrombosis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), represents a substantial healthcare challenge. Provoked and unprovoked DVT cases carry distinct risks and treatment considerations. Recognizing the limitations of this classification, molecular markers may enhance diagnostic precision and guide anticoagulation therapy duration relying on patient history and risk factors. This preliminary, open-label, prospective cohort study was conducted including 15 patients (10 provoked DVT and 5 unprovoked DVT) and a control group of healthy plasmatic subjects. Plasma levels of 9 biomarkers were measured at diagnosis (baseline, day 0, and D0) and after 30 days (day 30-D30). Patient demographics, clinical data, and biomarker concentrations were analyzed. Serum concentrations of D-dimer, von Willebrand factor, C-reactive protein, and Anti-Xa were elevated in DVT groups at D0 compared to controls. No significant differences were observed between the provoked and unprovoked groups on the day of diagnosis and 30 days later. Over 30 days, the provoked group exhibited significant biomarker changes related to temporal assessment. No significant differences were noted in the biomarker profile between provoked and unprovoked DVT groups. This study is indicative of the concept of individualized thrombosis assessment and subsequent treatment for VTE. Larger cohorts are warranted to validate these findings and further define the most appropriate use of the molecular markers.