Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-National Collaboration of Regulatory Agencies from Canada, Europe, and United States

Purpose

Few studies have examined how the absolute risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 has evolved over time across different countries. Researchers from the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration established a collaboration to evaluate the absolute risk of arterial (ATE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the 90 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 in the ambulatory (eg, outpatient, emergency department, nursing facility) setting from seven countries across North America (Canada, US) and Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain) within periods before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Patients and Methods

We conducted cohort studies of patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting from the seven specified countries. Patients were followed for 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcomes were ATE and VTE over 90 days from diagnosis date. We measured country-level estimates of 90-day absolute risk (with 95% confidence intervals) of ATE and VTE.

Results

The seven cohorts included 1,061,565 patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting before COVID-19 vaccines were available (through November 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.11% (0.09-0.13%) in Canada to 1.01% (0.97-1.05%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.23% (0.21-0.26%) in Canada to 0.84% (0.80-0.89%) in England. The seven cohorts included 3,544,062 patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (beginning December 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.06% (0.06-0.07%) in England to 1.04% (1.01-1.06%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.25% (0.24-0.26%) in England to 1.02% (0.99-1.04%) in the US.

Conclusion

There was heterogeneity by country in 90-day absolute risk of ATE and VTE after ambulatory COVID-19 diagnosis both before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Development and validation of a risk model for hospital-acquired venous thrombosis: the Medical Inpatients Thrombosis and Hemostasis study

BACKGROUND

Regulatory organizations recommend assessing hospital-acquired (HA) venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk for medical inpatients.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a risk assessment model (RAM) for HA-VTE in medical inpatients using objective and assessable risk factors knowable at admission.

METHODS

The development cohort included people admitted to medical services at the University of Vermont Medical Center (Burlington, Vermont) between 2010 and 2019, and the validation cohorts included people admitted to Hennepin County Medical Center (Minneapolis, Minnesota), University of Michigan Medical Center (Ann Arbor, Michigan), and Harris Health Systems (Houston, Texas). Individuals with VTE at admission, aged <18 years, and admitted for <1 midnight were excluded. We used a Bayesian penalized regression technique to select candidate HA-VTE risk factors for final inclusion in the RAM.

RESULTS

The development cohort included 60 633 admissions and 227 HA-VTE, and the validation cohorts included 111 269 admissions and 651 HA-VTE. Seven HA-VTE risk factors with t statistics ≥1.5 were included in the RAM: history of VTE, low hemoglobin level, elevated creatinine level, active cancer, hyponatremia, increased red cell distribution width, and malnutrition. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration slope were 0.72 and 1.10, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration slope were 0.70 and 0.93 at Hennepin County Medical Center, 0.70 and 0.87 at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and 0.71 and 1.00 at Harris Health Systems, respectively. The RAM performed well stratified by age, sex, and race.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a RAM for HA-VTE in medical inpatients. By quantifying risk, clinicians can determine the potential benefits of measures to reduce HA-VTE.

A review of the rationale for gene therapy for hemophilia A with inhibitors: one-shot tolerance and treatment?

The therapeutic landscape for people living with hemophilia A (PwHA) has changed dramatically in recent years, but many clinical challenges remain, including the development of inhibitory antibodies directed against factor VIII (FVIII) that occur in approximately 30% of people with severe hemophilia A. Emicizumab, an FVIII mimetic bispecific monoclonal antibody, provides safe and effective bleeding prophylaxis for many PwHA, but clinicians still explore therapeutic strategies that result in immunologic tolerance to FVIII to enable effective treatment with FVIII for problematic bleeding events. This immune tolerance induction (ITI) to FVIII is typically accomplished through repeated long-term exposure to FVIII using a variety of protocols. Meanwhile, gene therapy has recently emerged as a novel ITI option that provides an intrinsic, consistent source of FVIII. As gene therapy and other therapies now expand therapeutic options for PwHA, we review the persistent unmet medical needs with respect to FVIII inhibitors and effective ITI in PwHA, the immunology of FVIII tolerization, the latest research on tolerization strategies, and the role of liver-directed gene therapy to mediate FVIII ITI.

Risk of admission to hospital with arterial or venous thromboembolism among patients diagnosed in the ambulatory setting with covid-19 compared with influenza: retrospective cohort study

Objective

To measure the 90 day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism among patients diagnosed with covid-19 in the ambulatory (ie, outpatient, emergency department, or institutional) setting during periods before and during covid-19 vaccine availability and compare results to patients with ambulatory diagnosed influenza.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Four integrated health systems and two national health insurers in the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System.

Participants

Patients with ambulatory diagnosed covid-19 when vaccines were unavailable in the US (period 1, 1 April-30 November 2020; n=272 065) and when vaccines were available in the US (period 2, 1 December 2020-31 May 2021; n=342 103), and patients with ambulatory diagnosed influenza (1 October 2018-30 April 2019; n=118 618).

Main outcome measures

Arterial thromboembolism (hospital diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (hospital diagnosis of acute deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days after ambulatory covid-19 or influenza diagnosis. We developed propensity scores to account for differences between the cohorts and used weighted Cox regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios of outcomes with 95% confidence intervals for covid-19 during periods 1 and 2 versus influenza.

Results

90 day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism with covid-19 was 1.01% (95% confidence interval 0.97% to 1.05%) during period 1, 1.06% (1.03% to 1.10%) during period 2, and with influenza was 0.45% (0.41% to 0.49%). The risk of arterial thromboembolism was higher for patients with covid-19 during period 1 (adjusted hazard ratio 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.69)) and period 2 (1.69 (1.53 to 1.86)) than for patients with influenza. 90 day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism with covid-19 was 0.73% (0.70% to 0.77%) during period 1, 0.88% (0.84 to 0.91%) during period 2, and with influenza was 0.18% (0.16% to 0.21%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was higher with covid-19 during period 1 (adjusted hazard ratio 2.86 (2.46 to 3.32)) and period 2 (3.56 (3.08 to 4.12)) than with influenza.

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with covid-19 in the ambulatory setting had a higher 90 day risk of admission to hospital with arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism both before and after covid-19 vaccine availability compared with patients with influenza.

Association of COVID-19 vs Influenza With Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Hospitalized Patients

IMPORTANCE

The incidence of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in persons with COVID-19 remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the 90-day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before or during COVID-19 vaccine availability vs patients hospitalized with influenza.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of 41 443 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (April-November 2020), 44 194 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (December 2020-May 2021), and 8269 patients hospitalized with influenza (October 2018-April 2019) in the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System (data from 2 national health insurers and 4 regional integrated health systems).

EXPOSURES

COVID-19 or influenza (identified by hospital diagnosis or nucleic acid test).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospital diagnosis of arterial thromboembolism (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days. Outcomes were ascertained through July 2019 for patients with influenza and through August 2021 for patients with COVID-19. Propensity scores with fine stratification were developed to account for differences between the influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes during each COVID-19 vaccine availability period vs the influenza period.

RESULTS

A total of 85 637 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.0] years; 50.5% were male) and 8269 with influenza (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.3] years; 45.0% were male) were included. The 90-day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism was 14.4% (95% CI, 13.6%-15.2%) in patients with influenza vs 15.8% (95% CI, 15.5%-16.2%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%]) and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.0%-16.6%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of arterial thromboembolism was not significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). The 90-day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.8%) in patients with influenza vs 9.5% (95% CI, 9.2%-9.7%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.6%-4.7%]) and 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-6.1%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of venous thromboembolism was significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.43-1.79]) and during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.68-2.12]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on data from a US public health surveillance system, hospitalization with COVID-19 before and during vaccine availability, vs hospitalization with influenza in 2018-2019, was significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days, but there was no significant difference in the risk of arterial thromboembolism within 90 days.

Prophylactic fresh frozen plasma versus prothrombin complex concentrate for preprocedural management of the coagulopathy of liver disease: A systematic review

Background

The optimal prophylactic preprocedural management of patients with coagulopathy due to liver disease is not known.

Objectives

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in the preprocedural management of patients with coagulopathy of liver disease.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to examine published evidence regarding treatment with FFP or PCC in adults with coagulopathy of liver disease undergoing an invasive procedure. Direct comparisons and single‐arm studies were eligible. Efficacy outcomes included major bleeding, mortality, and correction of prothrombin time (PT) and/or international normalized ratio (INR). Safety outcomes included thrombosis and transfusion‐related complications.

Results

A total of 95 articles were identified for full‐text review. Nine studies were eligible and included in the review. No randomized trials comparing FFP versus PCC were identified. Only two studies directly compared FFP versus PCC. In these studies, PCC appeared to result in higher rates of correction of PT/INR, but bleeding outcomes were not different. In the single‐arm studies, bleeding events appeared low overall. Volume overload was the most common recorded adverse event in patients receiving FFP. Thromboembolic events occurred rarely, but exclusively in the PCC group. Due to heterogeneity in study definitions and bias, meta‐analysis was not possible. Our study found no evidence to favor a specific product over another.

Conclusions

Insufficient data exist on the effects of FFP versus PCC administration before invasive procedures in patients with coagulopathy of liver disease to make conclusions with respect to relative efficacy or safety.

Acquired Hemophilia A: Current Guidance and Experience from Clinical Practice

In acquired hemophilia A (AHA), autoantibodies to coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) neutralize FVIII activity leading to a potentially severe bleeding diathesis that carries a high rate of morbidity and mortality. This disorder is rare and occurs mainly in adults over 60 years of age or in the postpartum period. The diagnosis should be suspected in patients with new-onset bleeding without a personal or family history of bleeding and can be confirmed via specific assays for FVIII inhibitors. Treatment involves both hemostatic therapies to decrease bleeding and immune modulation strategies to re-establish immune tolerance to FVIII. There are limited data on treatment for refractory disease, based mostly on small case series. Registry studies have informed consensus guidelines for optimal hemostatic therapies and initial immunosuppressive therapies. Additional studies are needed to evaluate novel hemostatic agents and develop biomarkers to risk-stratify treatment while limiting adverse events.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and cardiovascular surgery

Clinicians generally counsel patients with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) to avoid heparin products lifelong. Although there are now many alternative (nonheparin) anticoagulants available, heparin avoidance remains challenging for cardiac surgery. Heparin is often preferred in the cardiac surgery setting based on the vast experience with the agent, ease of monitoring, and reversibility. To "clear" a patient with a history of HIT for cardiac surgery, hematologists must first confirm the diagnosis of HIT, which can be challenging due to the ubiquity of heparin exposure and frequency of thrombocytopenia in patients in the cardiac intensive care unit. Next, the "phase of HIT" (acute HIT, subacute HIT A/B, or remote HIT) should be established based on platelet count, immunoassay for antibodies to platelet factor 4/heparin complexes, and a functional assay (eg, serotonin release assay). As long as the HIT functional assay remains positive (acute HIT or subacute HIT A), cardiac surgery should be delayed if possible. If surgery cannot be delayed, an alternative anticoagulant (preferably bivalirudin) may be used. Alternatively, heparin may be used with either preoperative/intraoperative plasma exchange or together with a potent antiplatelet agent. The optimal strategy among these options is not known, and the choice depends on institutional experience and availability of alternative anticoagulants. In the later phases of HIT (subacute HIT B or remote HIT), brief intraoperative exposure to heparin followed by an alternative anticoagulant as needed in the postoperative setting is recommended.

Thrombosis After Vaccination With Messenger RNA-1273: Is This Vaccine-Induced Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia or Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome?

In their article, Sangli and colleagues described catastrophic thrombosis after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA–1273 vaccine from Moderna. The editorialists discuss vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and why this case cannot be definitively attributed to the vaccine. They also note that the remarkable speed with which clinicians and scientists have recognized this rare entity and developed evidence-based diagnosis and treatment guidelines should bolster public confidence in postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring.

Diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: The need for accuracy and speed

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic condition resulting from pathogenic antibodies to complexes of heparin and platelet factor 4 (PF4). The diagnosis of HIT can be challenging due to the widespread use of heparin and the frequency of thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients. Laboratory testing for HIT typically includes an immunoassay to detect antibodies to PF4-heparin and a functional assay. Current HIT diagnostic algorithms recommend using the 4Ts score to determine the need for HIT laboratory testing. Automated calculation of HIT clinical prediction scores in the electronic health record may improve the identification of patients who should undergo HIT testing. Another challenge in the management of patients with suspected HIT is the turnaround time of the laboratory testing needed to confirm the diagnosis. Due to the high daily thrombotic risk of HIT, clinicians must treat patients with intermediate to high pretest likelihood of HIT empirically while awaiting the test results. Treatment for HIT often involves alternative anticoagulants that lack reversal agents, which may increase bleeding risk, prolong hospital stays, and increase costs for patients suspected of having HIT. Rapid immunoassays hold promise to improve the speed of HIT diagnosis. These assays must retain a very high sensitivity for this "can't miss" diagnosis, yet have sufficient specificity to be of diagnostic value. A Bayesian approach has been proposed using two rapid immunoassays in succession, which decreased analytic turnaround time to 60 minutes. Such an approach has the potential to be a much-needed clinical advance in improving accuracy and speed in the diagnosis of HIT.

Bleeding risk by intensity of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies report hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading many institutions to escalate anticoagulation intensity for thrombosis prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the bleeding risk with various intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viral illnesses (ORVI).

PATIENTS/METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared the incidence of major bleeding in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) within a single health system with COVID-19 versus ORVI. In the COVID-19 cohort, we assessed the effect of anticoagulation intensity received on ICU admission on bleeding risk. We performed a secondary analysis with anticoagulation intensity as a time-varying covariate to reflect dose changes after ICU admission.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-three and 387 patients were included in the COVID-19 and ORVI cohorts, respectively. The hazard ratio of major bleeding for the COVID-19 cohort relative to the ORVI cohort was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.86). In COVID-19 patients, an inverse-probability treatment weighted model found therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation on ICU admission had an adjusted hazard ratio of bleeding of 1.55 (95% CI: 0.88-2.73) compared with standard prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. However, when anticoagulation was assessed as a time-varying covariate and adjusted for other risk factors for bleeding, the adjusted hazard ratio for bleeding on therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation compared with standard thromboprophylaxis was 2.59 (95% CI: 1.20-5.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had a similar bleeding risk as ORVI patients. When accounting for changes in anticoagulation that occurred in COVID-19 patients, therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding compared with standard thromboprophylaxis.

Maximum 24-hour platelet count fall: Metric for improving the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among patients with intermediate probability 4Ts scores

BACKGROUND

Most patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and an intermediate probability 4Ts score do not have HIT. We aimed to develop a metric based on the rate of platelet count fall to aid in discriminating HIT status among patients with an intermediate 4Ts score.

METHODS

We derived a measure of the maximum 24-hour percentage decrease in platelet count (Fallmax ) in a cohort of patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score at the University of Pennsylvania. We validated this metric in a prospectively collected cohort of patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score from four hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-eight and 139 patients were included in the analysis from the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Fallmax was significantly higher in HIT-positive patients in the derivation cohort (49.6% versus 38.6%, P = .009) and validation cohort (43.5% versus 29.3%, P = .027). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.78) and 0.71 (0.59-0.83) in the two cohorts, respectively. At Fallmax  ≥ 30%, sensitivity and specificity were 95.5% and 29.4% in the derivation cohort and 80.0% and 52.7% in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score, Fallmax aided in discriminating HIT-negative from HIT-positive patients. Using a measure that accounts for the rate of platelet count fall may help to avoid unnecessary suspension of heparin and treatment with an alternative anticoagulant in HIT-negative patients with an intermediate probability 4Ts score, though further evaluation is warranted.

Thrombocytopenia in pregnancy: Diagnosis and approach to management

Thrombocytopenia during pregnancy presents unique challenges for the hematologist. Obstetricians generally manage many of the pregnancy-specific etiologies, ranging from the benign (gestational thrombocytopenia) to the life-threatening (preeclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy). However, hematologists may be consulted for atypical and severe presentations and to help manage non-pregnancy specific etiologies, including immune thrombocytopenia, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, hemolytic uremic syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome, among others, in which maternal and fetal risks must be considered. This review provides a general approach to the diagnosis and management of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy for the consulting hematologist.

The risk of major bleeding in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

The presence of a hypercoagulable disorder such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) may protect against anticoagulant-associated bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of major bleeding in patients with suspected HIT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 310 patients suspected of having HIT from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and an affiliated community hospital. We compared the cumulative incidence of major bleeding following suspicion for HIT by ultimate HIT status (HIT+ or HIT-) and exposure to an alternative anticoagulant (Tx+ or Tx-). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of new/progressive thrombosis and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The incidence of major bleeding was high in the HIT+Tx+, HIT- Tx+, and HIT-Tx- groups (35.7%, 44.0%, and 37.3%, respectively). The time to first major bleeding event did not differ between groups (P = .24). Factors associated with increased risk of major bleeding included intensive care unit admission (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.47), platelet count < 25 × 109 /L (HR 2.13, 1.10-4.12), and renal dysfunction (HR 1.56, 1.06-2.27); 35.7% of HIT+Tx+, 13.8% HIT-Tx+, and 9.3% of HIT-Tx- patients experienced new or progressive thrombosis. Mortality was similar among the three groups (26.2% HIT+Tx+, 34.5% HIT-Tx+, and 26.7% of HIT-Tx- [P = .34]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected HIT, major bleeding was common regardless of HIT status. Contrary to our hypothesis, HIT+ patients were not protected from major bleeding. A better understanding of bleeding risk is needed to inform management decisions in patients with suspected HIT.

Management of antithrombotic therapy in adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): a survey of ITP specialists and general hematologist-oncologists

While patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and low platelet counts are at risk for bleeding, they are not protected against arterial and venous thrombotic events. Frequently, hematologists are asked to consult on a patient with ITP requiring an antiplatelet (AP) agent or anticoagulant (AC). No direct evidence exists to guide hematologists in weighing the risk of thrombosis against the risk of bleeding in patients with ITP. Therefore, we performed a survey to determine the preferred management of AP/AC therapy in ITP patients. The survey described hypothetical patient scenarios and asked respondents to recommend a minimum platelet count for initiation of AP/AC therapy. We surveyed both hematologists with an international reputation in treatment of ITP (n = 48) and also general hematologist-oncologists in Oklahoma (n = 97). Response rates were 38/48 (79%) for the ITP specialists and 46/97 (47%) for general hematologist-oncologists. Overall, recommended platelet thresholds for antithrombotic therapy were similar between ITP specialists and general hematologist-oncologists. Although both groups recommended a minimum platelet count of 50 × 10⁹/L for AP and AC therapy in most scenarios, there was great variability in individual practice patterns among respondents. This study highlights the need for studies of patients with ITP who require AP/AC therapy to provide high-quality evidence for establishing optimal management strategies.

Anticoagulation in ambulatory cancer patients with no indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs frequently in cancer patients and is a major cause of mortality. Although anticoagulation (AC) may have anti-tumour effects, it is recommended in cancer patients only for indications unrelated to these effects. A Markov model was constructed to estimate when prophylactic AC, given during four months of chemotherapy following a new cancer diagnosis, would be economically reasonable in ambulatory cancer patients with no VTE history. Risks and costs of major and minor bleeding, VTE, and death were obtained from the literature, including a 2011 Cochrane review of AC in cancer inpatients with no conventional indication. In the model, AC was low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH), and effects were modeled over a 24-month period. Model outputs were quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base case analysis, when prophylactic AC had a two-year relative mortality risk of 0.92, there was a gain of 0.0354 QALY, for an ICER of $90,893/QALY gained, compared with no AC. In sensitivity analyses, AC prophylaxis cost less than $100,000/QALY, if two-year mortality exceeded 75%, or if AC costs were less than $1,076 per month, or if LMWH relative mortality risk was less than 0.927. Results were not sensitive to variation in VTE relative risk on AC, nor to major or minor bleeding risk on AC. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis also favoured prophylactic AC. In conclusion, prophylactic LMWH given to decrease cancer-related mortality, with no conventional indication, appears economically reasonable if its suggested mortality benefit is confirmed in future trials.

Diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific versus polyspecific enzyme-linked immunoassays in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Essentials Immunoassay specificity varies in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) testing. This meta-analysis examined 9 studies that tested samples by both IgG and polyspecific methods. IgG-specific assays confer superior diagnostic accuracy compared with polyspecific assays. These results further support recommendations in favor of IgG-specific testing.

SUMMARY

Background There are conflicting data on whether the IgG-specific or polyspecific antiplatelet factor 4/heparin (PF4/H) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is preferred for the laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Objectives To directly compare diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific versus polyspecific ELISA in HIT. Patients/Methods A systematic search yielded nine studies comprising 1948 patients with suspected HIT tested by both IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISAs and a reference standard against which the diagnostic accuracy of the ELISAs could be measured. Study quality was assessed by QUADAS-2 criteria. Results There was identical sensitivity for IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISAs (0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-0.99) and superior specificity of IgG-specific compared with polyspecific ELISA (0.87 [0.85-0.88] vs. 0.82 [0.80-0.84], respectively). Performance was similar in subgroups using the serotonin release assay and a single commercial ELISA manufacturer. The negative predictive values of IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISA were similarly high (0.99, [0.99-1.00], but the positive predictive value was superior with IgG-specific compared with polyspecific ELISA (0.56 [0.52-0.61] vs. 0.32 [0.28-0.35], respectively). The positive likelihood ratio (LR) was higher in IgG-specific than polyspecific ELISA, although negative LRs were similar. There was high risk of quality concerns in domains of index test and reference standard. Conclusions The superior diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific ELISA reinforces the ISTH-SSC recommendation for standardization of laboratory testing for HIT. Likelihood ratios of individual assays may be used in combination with clinical scoring systems as part of an integrated diagnostic algorithm for HIT.