American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: May 2021 update on the use of intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness

Laboratory Measurement of the Anticoagulant Activity of the Non–Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants

AbstractBackgroundNon–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not require routine laboratory monitoring. However, laboratory measurement may be desirable in special situations and populations.ObjectivesThis study’s objective was to systematically review and summarize current evidence regarding laboratory measurement of the anticoagulant activity of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies that reported a relationship between drug levels of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban and coagulation assay results. Study quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).ResultsWe identified 17 eligible studies for dabigatran, 15 for rivaroxaban, and 4 for apixaban. For dabigatran, a normal thrombin time excludes clinically relevant drug concentrations. The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and prothrombin time (PT) are less sensitive and may be normal at trough drug levels. The dilute thrombin time (R2 = 0.92 to 0.99) and ecarin-based assays (R2 = 0.92 to 1.00) show excellent linearity across on-therapy drug concentrations and may be used for drug quantification. For rivaroxaban and apixaban, anti-Xa activity is linear (R2 = 0.89 to 1.00) over a wide range of drug levels and may be used for drug quantification. Undetectable anti-Xa activity likely excludes clinically relevant drug concentrations. The PT is less sensitive (especially for apixaban); a normal PT may not exclude clinically relevant levels. The APTT demonstrates insufficient sensitivity and linearity for quantification.ConclusionsDabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban exhibit variable effects on coagulation assays. Understanding these effects facilitates interpretation of test results in NOAC-treated patients. More information on the relationship between drug levels and clinical outcomes is needed

Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia

In 2009, a network of scholars identified the legal framework associated with coastal management in eleven Latin American countries. They found an important lag in several countries, including Colombia. According to many scholars, a clear regulatory framework is of the utmost importance for integrated coastal management; however, the hurdles to reaching this goal have been poorly analyzed. This article aims to illustrate the challenges and barriers to legislate on coastal and marine issues in Colombia. The methodology and analysis used in this study can serve as an example to other Latin American countries. We combined comparative, documentary, and analytical research techniques to describe the current Latin American state-of-the-art legal framework. Additionally, from 16,224 gazettes (official records of the Congress of Colombia) we identified 80 bills concerning coastal and marine activities for a period of 17 years. However, only 2.1% of those bills addressed marine or coastal issues from the perspective of planning and management procedures. Instead the majority focused on social uses and economic activities. This research identified the difficulties that could be faced by a country in regulating its coast from an integrated perspective. These findings could support future procedures to approve coastal laws in Latin America and other countries on the world