Heparin-induced thrombocy-topenia and COVID-19

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) has not been included as a possible cause of thrombocytopenia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We report a case of HIT in a patient with COVID-19 treated with heparin. A 78-year-old man was admitted to our hospital for acute respiratory failure and acute renal failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection; in intensive care unit, one 5000IU heparin dose (day 0, platelet count 305000/μL). On day 2, haemoglobin started to decrease and heparin was stopped. On day 10, platelet count was 153000/μL and 5000IU calcium heparin subcutaneously twice daily was started. The platelet further decreased, reaching 49000/μL on day 17, and the patient was investigated for suspected HIT: an IgG specific chemiluminescence test for heparin-PF4 antibodies was positive and a femoral DVT was found at ultrasound. Argatroban was started, platelet count increased without any bleeding and thrombosis complication. Our experience shows that HIT may develop in heparin treated COVID-19 patients and should be included among the possible cause of thrombocytopenia in such patients. © the Author(s), 2021

Different cut-off values of quantitative D-dimer methods to predict the risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence : a post-hoc analysis of the PROLONG study

Background: The PROLONG study showed that patients with venous thromboembolism who had qualitatively abnormal results in a D-dimer assay (Clearview Simplify D-dimer) after discontinuation of vitamin K antagonism benefit from resumption of treatment with vitamin K antagonism. The objective of this study was to evaluate the possible advantage of using quantitative D-dimer assays. Design and Methods: VIDAS D-dimer Exclusion (bioMerieux), Innovance D-DIMER (Dade Behring), HemosIL D-dimer HS (Instrumentation Laboratory) and STA Liatest D-dimer (Diagnostica Stago) assays were performed in plasma aliquots sampled 30\ub110 days after cessation of vitamin K antagonism in 321 patients enrolled in the PROLONG study. Results: During the follow-up without vitamin K antagonism, 25 patients had recurrent venous thromboembolism. The cut-off levels of the quantitative assays giving results most comparable with those of the qualitative test were: VIDAS = 800 ng/mL; Innovance = 800 ng/mL; HemosIL HS = 300 ng/mL; STA Liatest = 700 ng/mL. When the effect of the patients' age ( 6470 vs. >70 years) was analyzed, it was found that only in younger patients was the rate of recurrence of venous thromboembolism significantly higher in patients with abnormal D-dimer levels. However, using the quantitative assays and age-specific cut-off levels it was possible to determine statistically significant hazard ratios also in elderly patients (VIDAS = 600 and 1200 ng/mL, Innovance = 500 and 900 ng/mL, HemosIL HS = 250 and 450 ng/mL, STA Liatest = 700 and 1000 ng/mL, in patients aged 6470 and >70 years, respectively). Conclusions: Quantitative D-dimer assays may provide information useful for evaluating the individual risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. They seem particularly advantageous since they allow the selection of different cut-off levels according to the age or other characteristics of the patients

Do women with venous thromboembolism bleed more than men during anticoagulation? Data from the real-life, prospective START-Register

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and serious disease that requires immediate and long-term anticoagulant treatment, which is inevitably associated with a risk of bleeding complications. Some studies, though not all, reported a higher risk of bleeding in female patients treated with either old anticoagulants [vitamin k antagonists (VKAs)] or recent anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)]. Furthermore, analyses of clinical trials reported an abnormal vaginal bleeding in women of reproductive age treated with DOACs. This study aimed at comparing the risk of bleeding in an inception cohort of VTE women and men included in a prospective observational registry. Methods: Baseline characteristics and bleeding events occurring during anticoagulation in patients of both sexes, included in the START-Register after a first VTE, were analyzed. Results: In all, 1298 women were compared with 1290 men. Women were older and more often had renal diseases; their index events were often provoked (often by hormonal contraception and pregnancy), and more frequently presented as isolated pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of bleeding was similar in women (2.9% patient-years) and men (2.1% patient-years), though it was higher when uterine bleeds were included (3.5% patient-years, p = 0.0141). More bleeds occurred in VKA- than DOAC-treated patients (6.4% versus 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.0013). At multivariate analysis, age ⩾ 75 years was associated with higher prevalence of bleeds. Conclusion: The occurrence of bleeding was not different between women and men during anticoagulation after VTE. Only after inclusion of vaginal/uterine bleeds, the rate of bleeding was higher in women. The incidence of bleeding was higher in women treated with VKAs. Background: The occurrence of a venous thromboembolic event (VTE, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) necessarily requires a period of at least 3–6 months of treatment with anticoagulant drugs [either vitamin k antagonists (VKA) or, more recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)]. Anticoagulation therapy, however, is associated with a risk of bleeding that is influenced by several factors. Sex is one of these factors as some authors have hypothesized that women are at higher risk than men. Furthermore, some studies have recently found more vaginal bleeding in VTE women treated with a DOAC compared with those who received VKAs. Methods: The present study aimed to compare the frequency of bleeds occurring in women and in men who were treated with DOACs or VKAs for a first VTE event and followed in real-life conditions. Since the beginning of their anticoagulant treatment, the patients were included in a prospective, multicenter, observational registry (the START-Register), and bleeding events were recorded. Results: A total of 1298 women were compared with 1290 men. Women were older and more often were affected by renal diseases; their VTE events were often associated with risk factors (especially hormonal contraception and pregnancy) and presented as isolated pulmonary embolism. The rate of all bleeding events (including major, non-major but clinically relevant, and minor bleeds) was higher in women (3.5% patient-years) than in men (2.1% patient-years, p = 0.0141); however, the difference was no longer statistically significant after exclusion of uterine bleeds (2.9% patient years). More bleeding occurred in women receiving VKA as anticoagulant drug compared with those treated with a DOAC (6.4% versus 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.0013). At multivariate analysis, age ⩾ 75 years was associated with higher prevalence of bleeds. Conclusion: In conclusion, we found that in real-life conditions, the rate of bleeding events occurring during anticoagulation after a VTE episode is not higher in women than in men. Only after inclusion of vaginal bleeds, the rate of bleeding was higher in women. More bleeds (including vaginal bleeding) occurred in women treated with VKA than DOACs. © The Author(s), 2021

D-dimer levels during and after anticoagulation withdrawal in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with non-Vitamin K anticoagulants

Background D-dimer levels measured during and after vitamin K antagonist withdrawal may be used in clinical practice to assess the individual risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. Currently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are frequently used in venous thromboembolism treatment; however, their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics characteristics are completely different than vitamin K antagonists. The present study aimed at comparing the results of D-dimer levels during and after anticoagulation withdrawal in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with DOACs or warfarin. Material and methods D-dimer levels were measured in 527 patients (\u201ccases\u201d) during DOACs treatment (T0) and after 15 (T15), 30 (T30), 60 (T60) and 90 (T90) days after their discontinuation and in 527 patients (\u201ccontrols\u201d) enrolled in the DULCIS study (all treated with warfarin), matched for sex, age (+/-3 y), type of D-dimer assay and site of venous thromboembolism. Both cases and controls received anticoagulant treatment after a first venous thromboembolism event that was unprovoked or associated with weak risk factors. Results The rate of positive D-dimer results was significantly higher in cases than in controls at T0 (10.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.002) and at T30 (18.8% vs 11.8%, p = 0.019), as well as at the other time-points, though not statistically significant. Conclusion D-dimer levels during and after stopping an anticoagulant treatment for a venous thromboembolism episode differ between patients treated with a DOAC than in those treated with warfarin. Specifically designed prospective studies are warranted to reassess the use of D-dimer as predictor of the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients treated with DOACs

Insulin treatment and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims: Insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia and its use is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We have investigated whether this is also the case in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: We examined the association between diabetes/diabetes treatments and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, as well as other outcomes in adjusted analyses in CHARM-Preserved (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45%), I-Preserve and TOPCAT (Americas) pooled. Of 8466 patients, 2653 (31%) had diabetes, including 979 (37%) receiving insulin. Patients receiving insulin were younger, had a higher body mass index, prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and use of diuretics, worse New York Heart Association class and signs and symptoms, and worse quality of life and renal function, compared to patients with diabetes not on insulin. Among the 1398 patients with echocardiographic data, insulin use was associated with higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and more diastolic dysfunction than in other participants. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 6.3 per 100 patient-years in patients without diabetes, and 10.2 and 17.1 per 100 patient-years in diabetes patients without and with insulin use, respectively [fully adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.63, P < 0.001]. The adjusted HR is 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.32, p = 0.002) for sudden death (insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes). Conclusions: Insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HFpEF. Although we cannot conclude a causal association, the safety of insulin and alternative glucose-lowering treatments in HF needs to be evaluated in clinical trials

Comparison of five specific assays for determination of dabigatran plasma concentrations in patients enrolled in the START-Laboratory Register

Introduction: Several specific assays are commercially available to determine dabigatran anticoagulant activity. Aims of this multicenter and multiplatform study were to compare five methods for dabigatran measurement and investigate their performances in the low concentration range. Methods: Dabigatran levels were analyzed in 295 plasma samples from patients enrolled in the START-Laboratory Register by the following methods using dedicated calibrators and controls: STA-ECA II (Diagnostica Stago), standard and low range Hemoclot Thrombin Inhibitors (Hyphen BioMed), Direct Thrombin Inhibitor Assay (Instrumentation Laboratory), Direct Thrombin Inhibitor Assay (Siemens), Technoclot DTI (Technoclone). Results: Methods showed variable agreement with the Hemoclot Thrombin Inhibitors assay used as reference test, with modest under- or overestimations (Bland-Altman bias from −17.3 to 4.0 ng/mL). Limits of detection and quantification varied depending on the assay (4-52 and 7-82 ng/mL, respectively). Between-run precision and accuracy were good for all methods for both quality control levels. Assay's repeatability assessed at very low dabigatran concentrations (from 10 to 60 ng/mL) was also acceptable, variability generally increased at lower drug levels. Conclusion: The five dabigatran-specific assays evaluated in this study provided reliable assessment of dabigatran plasma levels, although showing different performances. © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology Published by John Wiley & Sons Lt

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations-State-of-the-Art.

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist