Vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) ‐ update on diagnosis and management considering different resources

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but severe immunological reaction to the non-replicable adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Extreme activation of platelets and the coagulation system leads to a high risk of death from venous or arterial thrombosis or secondary hemorrhage. Public and clinician awareness has reduced mortality of VITT by nearly 90%. The World Health Organization provided a guideline in July 2021 on diagnosis and management of VITT (also called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS). Since July 2021, new, clinically relevant information has become available. This update has been summarized by the authors in an informal process with recommendations for low resource environments. We provide new available evidence on VITT to empower clinicians to recognize VITT early, then effectively diagnose and treat the disorder to reduce morbidity and mortality. We strongly encourage production of clear management pathways for primary care settings and hospital settings

Anti-PF4 immunothrombosis without proximate heparin or adenovirus vector vaccine exposure.

Platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies and anti-PF4 antibodies cause heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT), respectively. Diagnostic and treatment considerations differ somewhat between HIT and VITT. We identified patients with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis without proximate heparin exposure or adenovirus-based vaccination who tested strongly positive by PF4/polyanion enzyme-immunoassays and negative/weakly positive by heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) test but strongly positive by PF4-induced platelet activation (PIPA) test (ie, VITT-like profile). We tested these patients by a standard chemiluminescence assay that detects anti-PF4/heparin antibodies found in HIT (HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgG(PF4-H)) as well as a novel chemiluminescence assay for anti-PF4 antibodies found in VITT. Representative control sera included an exploratory anti-PF4 antibody-positive but HIPA-negative/weak cohort obtained before 2020 (n = 188). We identified 9 patients with a clinical-pathological profile of a VITT-like disorder in the absence of proximate heparin or vaccination, with a high frequency of stroke (arterial, n = 3; cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, n = 4), thrombocytopenia (median platelet count nadir, 49 × 109/L), and hypercoagulability (greatly elevated D-dimer levels). VITT-like serological features included strong reactivity by PIPA (aggregation <10 minutes in 9/9 sera) and positive testing in the novel anti-PF4 chemiluminescence assay (3/9 also tested positive in the anti-PF4/heparin chemiluminescence assay). Our exploratory cohort identified 13 additional patient sera obtained before 2020 with VITT-like anti-PF4 antibodies. Platelet-activating VITT-like anti-PF4 antibodies should be considered in patients with thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, and very high D-dimer levels, even without a proximate exposure to heparin or adenovirus vector vaccines

Systematic Review of Medicine-Related Problems in Adult Patients with Atrial Fibrillation on Direct Oral Anticoagulants

New oral anticoagulant agents continue to emerge on the market and their safety requires assessment to provide evidence of their suitability for clinical use. There-fore, we searched standard databases to summarize the English language literature on medicine-related problems (MRPs) of direct oral anticoagulants DOACs (dabigtran, rivaroxban, apixban, and edoxban) in the treatment of adults with atri-al fibrillation. Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA), Scopus, CINAHL, the Web of Science and Cochrane were searched from 2008 through 2016 for original articles. Studies pub-lished in English reporting MRPs of DOACs in adult patients with AF were in-cluded. Seventeen studies were identified using standardized protocols, and two reviewers serially abstracted data from each article. Most articles were inconclusive on major safety end points including major bleeding. Data on major safety end points were combined with efficacy. Most studies inconsistently reported adverse drug reactions and not adverse events or medication error, and no definitions were consistent across studies. Some harmful drug effects were not assessed in studies and may have been overlooked. Little evidence is provided on MRPs of DOACs in patients with AF and, therefore, further studies are needed to establish the safety of DOACs in real-life clinical practice