Hemostatic and thrombotic disorders in the pediatric patient

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah H. O'Brien ◽  
Ayesha Zia
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Von Willebrand Disease ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Excessive Bleeding ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Treatment

This review focuses on significant advances in the field of pediatric hemostasis and thrombosis, with a focus on published studies within the past decade. The evaluation and management of patients with excessive bleeding remain a cornerstone of consultative hematology. We will describe the development of validated bleeding assessment tools relevant to pediatric practice, laboratory advances in the evaluation of von Willebrand Disease, and a shift in clinical practice regarding the interpretation of normal coagulation studies in patients with significant bleeding phenotypes. There have also been critical advances in the management of hemostatic disorders. This review highlights new treatment paradigms in hemophilia and the rise of multidisciplinary medical homes for women living with bleeding disorders. Given the continued increase in the incidence of thrombosis, particularly in the hospital setting, a full call to arms against pediatric venous thromboembolism is now essential. This review will describe recently completed clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants in children and adolescents and ongoing work to elucidate the appropriate duration of therapy for children with provoked thrombosis. Recent work regarding the prevention of pediatric venous thromboembolism is highlighted, including studies of thromboprophylaxis and the development of risk-prediction models for hospital-acquired thrombosis. Finally, we review advances in our understanding of post-thrombotic sequelae and the need for continued refinement of our evaluation tools. Despite the significant advances in pediatric hemostasis and thrombosis over the past decade, many unanswered questions remain for the next generation of investigators.

scholarly journals Individualised Risk Assessments for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: New Frontiers in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Hemato ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Julie Wang ◽  
Hui Yin Lim ◽  
Prahlad Ho
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Coagulation Assays

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high recurrence rates. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the 2010s has changed the landscape of VTE management. DOACs have become the preferred anticoagulant therapy for their ease of use, predictable pharmacokinetics, and improved safety profile. Increasingly, guidelines have recommended long term anticoagulation for some indications such as following first unprovoked major VTE, although an objective individualised risk assessment for VTE recurrence remains elusive. The balance of preventing VTE recurrence needs to be weighed against the not insignificant bleeding risk, which is cumulative with prolonged use. Hence, there is a need for an individualised, targeted approach for assessing the risk of VTE recurrence, especially in those patients in whom the balance between benefit and risk of long-term anticoagulation is not clear. Clinical factors alone do not provide the level of discrimination required on an individual level. Laboratory data from global coagulation assays and biomarkers may provide enhanced risk assessment ability and are an active area of research. A review of the prediction models and biomarkers for assessing VTE recurrence risk is provided, with an emphasis on contemporary developments in the era of DOACs and global coagulation assays.

scholarly journals Do we need prophylactic anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with lung cancer? A review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Dimakakos ◽  
Elias Kotteas ◽  
Georgia Gomatou ◽  
Theodora Katsarou ◽  
Vassilis Vlahakos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Ambulatory Patients ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of malignancy. Lung cancer is considered one of the most thrombogenic cancer types. Primary thromboprophylaxis is not currently recommended for all ambulatory patients with active cancer. In the present narrative review we aim to summarize recent data on the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis as well as on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, focusing on ambulatory patients with lung cancer. A potential benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparins in terms of venous thromboembolism risk reduction and increased overall survival in patients with lung cancer, without a significant increase in bleeding risk, has been reported in several studies. Recent studies also reveal promising results of direct oral anticoagulants regarding their efficacy as primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer, including those with lung cancer. However, the use of different study methodologies and the heterogeneity of study populations among the trials limit the extraction of definite results. More randomized, controlled trials, restricted to a well-characterized population of patients with lung cancer, are greatly anticipated. The use of risk assessment tools for stratification of venous thromboembolic risk is warranted. The development of an accurate and practical risk assessment model for patients with lung cancer represents an unmet need.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in malignancy induced venous thromboembolism-a systematic review and meta analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abdul Razzack ◽  
N Hussain ◽  
S Adeel Hassan ◽  
S Mandava ◽  
F Yasmin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Dichotomous Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background- Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proven to be more effective in the management of venous thromboembolism (MVTE). The efficacy and safety of LMWH or DOACs in treatment of recurrent or malignancy induced VTE is not studied in literature. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of LMWH and  DOACs in the management of malignancy induced  VTE Methods- Electronic databases ( PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from inception to November  28th, 2020. Dichotomous data was extracted for prevention of VTE and risk of major bleeding in patients taking either LMWH or DOACs. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance to be considered if the confidence interval excludes 1 and p < 0.05.  Results- Three studies with 2607 patients (DOACs n = 1301 ; LMWH n = 1306) were included in analysis. All the study population had active cancer of any kind diagnosed within the past 6 months. Average follow-up period for each trial was 6 months. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower odds of recurrence of MVTE as compared to LMWH( OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P = 0.003, I2 = 0). There was no significant difference in major bleeding among patients receiving LMWH or DOACs  (OR-0.71, 95%CI 0.46-1.10, P = 0.13, I2 = 22%) (Figure 1). We had no publication bias in our results (Egger’s regression p > 0.05). Conclusion- DOACs are superior to LMWH in prevention of MVTE and have similar major bleeding risk as that of LMWH. Abstract Figure. A)VTE Recurrence B)Major Bleeding events

scholarly journals Anticoagulant treatment satisfaction with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret C. Fang ◽  
Alan S. Go ◽  
Priya A. Prasad ◽  
Jin-Wen Hsu ◽  
Dongjie Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Treatment Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Routine Laboratory ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
The Difference

AbstractTreatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen’s d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen’s d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Korean Cancer Patients With Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 107602962097957
Author(s):  
Soo-Mee Bang ◽  
Jin-Hyoung Kang ◽  
Min Hee Hong ◽  
Jin-Seok Ahn ◽  
So Yeon Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Medical Chart Review ◽  
Deep Vein

This study assessed epidemiologic data and clinical outcomes, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding events, in patients with cancer-associated VTE, and assessed factors associated with clinical outcomes. Data were extracted from retrospective medical-chart review of adult patients diagnosed with cancer-associated deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who received anticoagulation treatment for ≥3 months. Patients were classified by: low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and other anticoagulants. First VTE recurrence and bleeding events, and factors associated with their occurrence, were assessed during the initial 6 months of treatment. Overall, 623 patients (age: 63.7 ± 11.3 years, 49.3% male) were included (119, 132, and 372 patients in LMWH, DOACs and other anticoagulants groups, respectively). The cumulative 6-month incidence of VTE recurrence was 16.6% (total), 8.3% (LMWH), 16.7% (DOACs), and 20.7% (other); respective bleeding events were 22.5%, 11.0%, 12.3%, and 30.7%). VTE recurrence and bleeding rates differed only between LMWH and other anticoagulants (HR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-5.0 and 3.6, 1.9-6.8, respectively). These results highlight the importance of initial VTE treatment choice for preventing VTE recurrence and bleeding events. LMWH or DOACs for ≥3 months can be considered for effective VTE management in cancer patients.

P5239Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J King ◽  
S Bhat ◽  
L J Heath ◽  
C G Derington ◽  
Z Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Major Bleed ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective as low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) at preventing recurrence after cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE). DOACs are also oral and far less costly, but they may confer a higher bleeding risk than LMWH. Purpose To estimate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and LMWHs for CA-VTE. Methods We developed a health state transition model to estimate recurrent VTE, bleeding events, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and direct healthcare costs (2018 United States dollars) associated with DOACs vs. LMWH use. The model had four states: (1) long-term anticoagulation (first 3 months after VTE), (2) extended anticoagulation (more than 3 months after VTE), (3) off anticoagulants, and (4) death. We used a United States healthcare sector perspective, 3-month cycle length, and 1-year time horizon. Event probabilities were derived from the Hokusai Cancer VTE trial and other literature. Event and medication costs were obtained from national sources. We used a threshold of less than $50,000 per QALY gained to define cost-effectiveness. Results Compared to LMWH, DOACs were less costly (mean costs: $8,477 vs. $33,917 per year) and similarly effective (mean QALY: 0.616 vs. 0.622). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4,479,374 per QALY gained with LMWH, indicating that DOACs are cost-effective (Table 1). In threshold analyses, LMWH therapy only became cost-effective when DOAC recurrent VTE risk increased to at least 72% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 6.19) or DOAC clinically relevant bleeding increased to at least 39% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 10.09). Scenarios Recurrent VTE, % Major bleed, % Mean difference DOAC − LMW ICER DOAC LMWH Relative Risk DOAC LMWH Relative Risk Cost QALY Base case 8.1 11.6 0.71 6.8 4.0 1.75 −$25,440 (−26,496, −24,274) −0.006 (−0.019, 0.008) $4,479,374 DOAC outcome rate threshold at which LMWH becomes cost-effective*   Recurrent VTE 71.5 11.7 6.19 – – – −$6,064 (−7,534, −4,627) −0.121 (−0.136, −0.108) $49,886   Major Bleed – – – 38.9 4.0 10.09 −$2,192 (−3,400, −704) −0.044 (−0.056, −0.030) $49,878 DOAC = direct oral anticoagulant, ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin, VTE = venous thromboembolism. Values are mean (95% Uncertainty Interval). Uncertainty was derived from 1,000 stochastic model iterations. *Represents the minimum increased risk with DOAC that would result in LMWH achieving an ICER <$50K per QALY gained. Conclusion In this simulation study, DOACs were a cost-effective oral alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CA-VTE. For LMWH to be cost-effective, DOAC event rates needed to be far higher than what is likely to be observed in clinical practice. Acknowledgement/Funding Agency for Health Research and Quality R18HS026156

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document