Results of an international survey of opinions on the definitions and treatments for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Platelet Immunology

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is rare, affecting fewer than 1 in 1500 hospital admissions. Despite the increasing adoption of new therapies in HIT, such as direct oral anticoagulants and pooled immunoglobulins, there is limited high-quality evidence to guide clinicians. Numerous uncommon presentations of HIT and HIT-like entities have recently been recognized, and a harmonized approach to their classification is required to study them better. We present the results of an international survey of opinions from experts and practitioners in the field of platelet immunology regarding the role of direct oral anticoagulants in HIT, novel definitions of subclassifications of HIT-like platelet factor 4 immune conditions (spontaneous autoimmune HIT, persistent autoimmune HIT, and treatment-refractory HIT), and the role for intravenous immunoglobulins in the treatment paradigm of HIT and these HIT-like conditions. From 102 survey responses, there was broad acceptance of rivaroxaban (74.5%) and apixaban (73.5%) even before platelet recovery, as well as for intravenous immunoglobulin in the management of spontaneous (85.6%), persistent (83.7%), and treatment-refractory HIT (87.4%). With this mandate for harmonizing terminologies and treatment approaches in special situations without robust clinical data owing to their rarity, we plan to conduct a robust survey, establish international consensus, and draft management guidelines for HIT and platelet factor 4 immune diseases in the near future.

Unlocking the potential of fondaparinux: guideline for optimal usage and clinical suggestions (2023)

Background: Thromboembolic disease is associated with a high rate of disability or death and gravely jeopardizes people's health and places considerable financial pressure on society. The primary treatment for thromboembolic illness is anticoagulant medication. Fondaparinux, a parenteral anticoagulant medicine, is still used but is confusing due to its disparate domestic and international indications and lack of knowledge about its usage. Its off-label drug usage in therapeutic settings and irrational drug use are also common. Objective: The aim of this guideline is to enhance the judicious clinical application of fondaparinux by consolidating the findings of evidence-based research on the drug and offering superior clinical suggestions. Methods: Seventeen clinical questions were developed by 37 clinical pharmacy experts, and recommendations were formulated under the supervision of three methodologists. Through methodical literature searches and the use of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation grading techniques, we gathered evidence. Results: This guideline culminated in 17 recommendations, including the use of fondaparinux for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and treatment, perioperative surgical prophylaxis, specific diseases, special populations, bleeding and overdose management. For different types of VTE, we recommend first assessing thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients and then administering the drug according to the patient's body mass. In surgical patients in the perioperative period, fondaparinux may be used for VTE prophylaxis, but postoperative use usually requires confirmation that adequate hemostasis has been achieved. Fondaparinux may be used for anticoagulation prophylaxis in patients hospitalized for oncological purposes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after resuscitation, in patients with cirrhosis combined with portal vein thrombosis (PVT), in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Fondaparinux should be used with caution in special populations, such as pregnant female patients with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or platelet counts less than 50 × 109/L, pregnant patients with a prethrombotic state (PTS) combined with recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), and children. For bleeding caused by fondaparinux, dialysis may partially remove the drug. Conclusion: The purpose of this guideline is to provide all healthcare providers with high-quality recommendations for the clinical use of fondaparinux and to improve the rational use of the drug in clinical practice. Currently, there is a lack of a dedicated antidote for the management of fondaparinux. The clinical investigation of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFⅦa) as potential reversal agents is still pending. This critical gap necessitates heightened scrutiny and research emphasis, potentially constituting a novel avenue for future inquiries into fondaparinux sodium. A meticulous examination of adverse events and safety profiles associated with the utilization of fondaparinux sodium will contribute significantly to a more comprehensive understanding of its inherent risks and benefits within the clinical milieu.

Heparin-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (HITT) and Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT): Similar but Different

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) represents an autoimmune process whereby antibodies are formed against heparin in complex with platelet factor 4 (PF4) after heparin administration. These antibodies can be detected by a variety of immunological assays, including ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and by chemiluminescence on the AcuStar instrument. However, pathological HIT antibodies are those that activate platelets in a platelet activation assay and cause thrombosis in vivo. We would tend to call this condition heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (HITT), although some workers instead use the truncated abbreviation HIT. Vaccine-induced (immune) thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) instead reflects an autoimmune process whereby antibodies are formed against PF4 after administration of a vaccine, most notably adenovirus-based vaccines directed against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). Although both VITT and HITT reflect similar pathological processes, they have different origins and are detected in different ways. Most notable is that anti-PF4 antibodies in VITT can only be detected immunologically by ELISA assays, tending to be negative in rapid assays such as that using the AcuStar. Moreover, functional platelet activation assays otherwise used for HITT may need to be modified to detect platelet activation in VITT.

Laboratory testing for platelet factor 4 antibodies: differential utility for diagnosis/exclusion of heparin induced thrombocytopenia versus suspected vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia

Platelet factor 4 (PF4), a protein stored in the alpha-granules of platelets and released upon activation, forms cationic tetramers that bind with various polymeric anions, including heparin. Some individuals develop antibodies against PF4 in complex with heparin (PF4/H), which potentially lead to the onset of heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). In some patients, this may cause activation and aggregation of platelets, promoting pathological thrombosis, in a process called heparin induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis ('HITT'). Laboratories can assess for the presence of these antibodies using many PF4 antibody tests, including by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), latex immunoassay (LIA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and even rapid nanoparticle based lateral flow immunoassays. All these assays can identify such antibodies with high sensitivity, but methods may have variable specificity. For example, several studies have shown CLIA assays to have higher specificity to HITT than ELISA assays. Very recently, a new 'HITT-like' syndrome has been described in some individuals receiving adenovirus based COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines. This condition has been given several names, including vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), and also involves a mechanism mediated by antibodies formed against PF4. These antibodies can also be detected by PF4 antibody tests, but detection sensitivity appears to favour ELISA assays, with most other tests (including CLIA and LIA) not generally capable of detecting such antibodies. Additional functional assays assessing for PF4 mediated platelet activation may also be performed. The current review is focussed on laboratory testing for PF4 antibodies, in particular to distinguishing patterns in HITT versus VITT.

Antibodies against Platelet Factor 4 and Their Associated Pathologies: From HIT/HITT to Spontaneous HIT-Like Syndrome, to COVID-19, to VITT/TTS

Antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4), a protein released from alpha-granules of activated platelets, may cause a number of pathophysiological conditions. The most commonly known is heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), which develops in a small proportion of people treated with the anticoagulant drug heparin. Notably, PF4 binds with high affinity to heparin, and in HIT, complexes of PF4/H may, in a small proportion of susceptible patients, trigger the development of anti-PF4 antibodies and subsequent platelet activation and aggregation, ultimately leading to the development of pathological thrombosis at sites of vessel occlusion. Of more modern interest, antibodies against PF4 may also arise in patients with COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) or in patients who have been vaccinated against COVID-19, especially in recipients of adenovirus-based vaccines. For this latter group of patients, the terms VITT (vaccine-induced [immune] thrombotic thrombocytopenia) and TTS (thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome) have been coined. Another category associated with this pathophysiology comprises those in whom a precipitating event is not clear; this category is referred to as ‘spontaneous HIT-like syndrome’. Despite its name, it arises as an HIT-mimicking disorder but without antecedent heparin exposure. In this narrative review, we describe the development of antibodies against PF4, and associated pathophysiology, in such conditions.

Diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in mechanical circulatory support device patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) patients with positive heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) screening pose a unique challenge, as clinicians must make rapid decisions about their anticoagulation and whether they can safely undergo cardiopulmonary bypass. We identified screening practices at our institution and other institutions nationwide that differed from American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines. This discovery prompted a data review to confirm the applicability of guidelines to this unique population and to highlight complications of "gestalt" screening.

METHODS

Our study included MCSD patients with HIT testing from April 2014 to August 2020. We evaluated 510 PF4 IgG ELISA results.

RESULTS

HIT was confirmed in 4.2% of patients. There was an increased prevalence of HIT in patients with nondurable (5.3%) vs durable devices (2.9%) or those in the preimplantation setting (1.3%), however this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). None of the patients with a low probability 4T Score had HIT. All patients with a high probability 4T Score and PF4 immunoassay OD >2.0 had HIT. False positive results occurred in 22% of assays ordered for patients with a low probability 4T Score. Twelve patients with a low probability 4T Score and a false positive immunoassay were switched to a direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) while awaiting confirmatory results. Two patients experienced clinically significant bleeding after conversion to a DTI. An organ was refused in one patient with false positive HIT screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that an opportunity exists to improve clinical outcomes by re-emphasizing the utility of established guidelines and highlighting their safe use in the MCSD patient population.

Platelet factor 4 polyanion immune complexes: heparin induced thrombocytopenia and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

This is a review article on heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, an adverse effect of heparin therapy, and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, occurring in some patients administered certain coronavirus vaccines.

MAIN BODY/TEXT

Immune-mediated thrombocytopenia occurs when specific antibodies bind to platelet factor 4 /heparin complexes. Platelet factor 4 is a naturally occurring chemokine, and under certain conditions, may complex with negatively charged molecules and polyanions, including heparin. The antibody-platelet factor 4/heparin complex may lead to platelet activation, accompanied by other cascading reactions, resulting in cerebral sinus thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, lower limb arterial thrombosis, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, skin necrosis, and thrombotic stroke. If untreated, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia can be life threatening. In parallel, rare incidents of spontaneous vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia can also occur in some patients administered certain coronavirus vaccines. The role of platelet factor 4 in vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome further reinforces the importance the platelet factor 4/polyanion immune complexes and the complications that this might pose to susceptible individuals. These findings demonstrate, how auxiliary factors can complicate heparin therapy and drug development. An increasing interest in biomanufacturing heparins from non-animal sources has driven a growing interest in understanding the biology of immune-mediated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and therefore, the development of safe and effective biosynthetic heparins.

SHORT CONCLUSION

In conclusion, these findings further reinforce the importance of the binding of platelet factor 4 with known and unknown polyanions, and the complications that these might pose to susceptible patients. In parallel, these findings also demonstrate how auxiliary factors can complicate the heparin drug development.

Early Suspicion of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia for Successful Free Flap Salvage: Reports of Two Cases

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an underestimated complication of heparin treatment. Flap loss and related morbidity (even mortality) are caused by occlusion of the capillary vessels by a highly immunogenic complex formed by adherence of antiheparin antibodies to platelet factor 4. Early suspicion and effective treatment of HIT developing in two free flaps are described. We report on the management of two patients with HIT. Both patients were treated successfully by early suspicion and hematology consultation. Heparin products were discontinued; the patients were switched to a nonheparin anticoagulant. We emphasize the importance of early diagnosis, hematologist assessment, and a change to a nonheparin anticoagulant to prevent flap failure and possibly the catastrophic consequences of such failure.

The complicated relationships of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and platelet factor 4 antibodies with COVID-19

COVID‐19 (coronavirus disease 2019) represents a prothrombotic disorder, and there have been several reports of platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies being present in COVID‐19‐infected patients. This has thus been identified in some publications as representing a high incidence of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), whereas in others, findings have been tempered by general lack of functional reactivity using confirmation assays of serotonin release assay (SRA) or heparin‐induced platelet aggregation (HIPA). Moreover, in at least two publications, data are provided suggesting that antibodies can arise in heparin naïve patients or that platelet activation may not be heparin‐dependent. From this literature, we would conclude that platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies can be observed in COVID‐19‐infected patients, and they may occur at higher incidence than in historical non‐COVID‐19‐infected cohorts. However, the situation is complex, since not all platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies may lead to platelet activation, and not all identified antibodies are heparin‐dependent, such that they do not necessarily reflect “true” HIT. Most recently, a “HIT‐like” syndrome has reported in patients who have been vaccinated against COVID‐19. Accordingly, much more is yet to be learnt about the insidious disease that COVID‐19 represents, including autoimmune outcomes in affected patients.

Clinical outcomes of bivalirudin versus heparin in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion

Background

Prior studies have suggested that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) referred for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are confronted with considerable risk of periprocedural thromboembolism and hemmorhagic events. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of bivalirudin during LAAO.

Methods

This retrospective, observational study included 420 AF patients who were evaluated as being at high risk of stroke or bleeding and indicated for LAAO at our center between June 2018 and June 2019 (158 with bivalirudin and 262 with heparin). The primary outcome was the incidence of any bleeding within 48 hours of LAAO. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between 48 hours and 60 days post-procedure and overall bleeding events during follow up.

Results

No significant difference was observed between bivalirudin and heparin for major periprocedural bleeding (1.27% for bivalirudin vs. 2.29% for heparin, P=0.716) or minor bleeding (1.27% vs. 1.15%, P>0.9). At 48 hours post-procedure, strokes occurred at a rate of 0.63% in the bivalirudin group and 1.15% in the heparin group (P>0.9), and one case treated with bivalirudin developed systemic embolization. At 60 days, the rates of MACE (1.90% vs. 2.29%, P>0.9), a device-related thrombus (DRT) (1.27% vs. 1.52%, P>0.9), and overall bleeding events (5.06% vs. 4.96%, P=0.963) were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Upon Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, early safety during the 60-day follow-up was 93.67% in the bivalirudin group and 91.60% in the heparin group (P=0.570).

Conclusions

Bivalirudin has a comparable safety and efficacy profile to heparin as an intraprocedural anticoagulant, but currently, it should still be reserved for patients in which heparin is contraindicated.

Serotonin-release assay-positive but platelet factor 4-dependent enzyme-immunoassay negative: HIT or not HIT?

IgG-specific and polyspecific PF4-dependent enzyme-immunoassays (EIAs) have exceptionally high sensitivity (≥99%) for diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a drug reaction caused by platelet-activating antibodies detectable by serotonin-release assay (SRA). The IgG-specific EIAs are recommended for screening, as their high sensitivity is accompanied by relatively high specificity vis-à-vis polyspecific EIAs. We investigated the frequency of SRA-positive/EIA-negative (SRA+/EIA-) HIT, prompted by referral to our reference HIT laboratory of serial blood samples from a patient ("index case") with false-negative IgG-specific EIAs. Despite initial clinical suspicion for HIT, repeat negative IgG-specific EIAs prompted heparin resumption, which triggered recurrent thrombocytopenia and near-fatal cardiac arrest, indicating likely post-heparin HIT-associated anaphylactoid reaction. Further investigations revealed a strong-positive SRA, whether performed with heparin alone, PF4 alone, or PF4/heparin, with inhibition by Fc receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody (indicating IgG-mediated platelet activation); however, five different IgG-specific immunoassays yielded primarily negative (or weak-positive) results. To investigate the frequency of SRA+/EIA- HIT, we reviewed the laboratory and clinical features of patients with this serological profile during a 6-year period in which our reference laboratory investigated for HIT using both SRA and IgG-specific EIA. Although ~0.2% of 8546 patients had an SRA+/EIA- profile, further review of 15 such cases indicated clerical/laboratory misclassification or false-positive SRA in all, with no SRA+/EIA- HIT case identified. We conclude that while SRA+/EIA- HIT is possible-as shown by our index case-this clinical picture is exceptionally uncommon. Moreover, the requirement for a positive EIA is a useful quality control maneuver that reduces risk of reporting a false-positive SRA result.

Why thromboembolism occurs in some patients with thrombocytopenia and treatment strategies

Platelets play such an important role in the process of thrombosis that patients with thrombocytopenia generally have an increased risk of bleeding. However, abnormal thrombotic events can sometimes occur in patients with thrombocytopenia, which is unusual and inexplicable. The treatments for thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism are usually contradictory. This review introduces the mechanisms of thromboembolism in patients with different types of thrombocytopenia and outlines treatment recommendations for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. According to the cause of thrombocytopenia, this article addresses four etiologies, including inherited thrombocytopenia (Myh9-related disease, ANKRD26-associated thrombocytopenia, Glanzmann thrombasthenia, Bernard-Soulier syndrome), thrombotic microangiopathy (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, hemolytic uremic syndrome, Hemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes and Low Platelets syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation), autoimmune-related thrombocytopenia (immune thrombocytopenic purpura, antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus), and acquired thrombocytopenia (Infection-induced thrombocytopenia and drug-induced thrombocytopenia, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia). We hope to provide more evidence for clinical applications and future research.

Structural Features and PF4 Functions that Occur in Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) Complicated by COVID-19

Platelet factor 4 (PF4, CXCL4) is a small chemokine protein released by activated platelets. Although a major physiological function of PF4 is to promote blood coagulation, this cytokine is involved in innate and adaptive immunity in events when platelets are activated in response to infections. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have abnormal coagulation activities, and severe patients develop higher D-dimer levels. D-dimers are small protein products present in the blood after blood clots are degraded by fibrinolysis. To prevent clotting, heparin is often clinically used in COVID-19 patients. Some clinical procedures for the management of COVID-19 patients may include extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which also require the use of heparin. Anti-PF4 antibodies are frequently detected in severe patients and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) can also be observed. PF4 and its role in HIT as well as in pathologies seen in COVID-19 patients define a potential therapeutic option of using blocking antibodies in the treatment of COVID-19.

A multicentre assessment of contemporary laboratory assays for heparin induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a rare but potentially fatal complication of heparin therapy. In some patients, HIT causes platelet activation and thrombosis (sometimes abbreviated HITT), which leads to adverse clinical sequalae ('pathological HIT'). The likelihood of HIT is initially assessed clinically, typically using a scoring system, of which the 4T score is that most utilised. Subsequent laboratory testing to confirm or exclude HIT facilitates exclusion or diagnosis and management. The current investigation comprises a multicentre (n=9) assessment of contemporary laboratory testing for HIT, as performed over the past 1-3 years in each site and comprising testing of over 1200 samples. The primary laboratory test used by study participants (n=8) comprised a chemiluminescence procedure (HIT-IgG_(PF4-H)) performed on an AcuStar instrument. Additional immunological testing performed by study sites included lateral flow (STiC, Stago), enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Asserachrom (HPIA IgG), PaGIA (BioRad), plus functional assays, primarily serotonin release assay (SRA) or platelet aggregation methods. The chemiluminescence procedure yielded a highly sensitive screening method for identifying functional HIT, given high area under the curve (AUC, generally ≥0.9) in a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis against SRA as gold standard. ELISA testing resulted in lower ROC AUC scores (<0.8) and higher levels of false positives. Although there is clear association with the likelihood of HIT, the 4T score had less utility than literature suggests, and was comparable to a previous study reported by some of the authors.