Dry Needling and Antithrombotic Drugs

Many clinicians increasingly use dry needling in clinical practice. However, whether patients’ intake of antithrombotic drugs should be considered as a contraindication for dry needling has not been investigated to date. As far as we know, there are no publications in analyzing the intake of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents in the context of dry needling techniques. A thorough analysis of existing medications and how they may impact various needling approaches may contribute to improved evidence-informed clinical practice. The primary purpose of this paper is to review the current knowledge of antithrombotic therapy in the context of dry needling. In addition, reviewing guidelines of other needling approaches, such as electromyography, acupuncture, botulinum toxin infiltration, and neck ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, may provide specific insights relevant for dry needling. Based on published data, taking antithrombotic medication should not be considered an absolute contraindication for dry needling techniques. As long as specific dry needling and individual risks are properly considered, it does not change the risk and safety profile of dry needling. Under specific circumstances, the use of ultrasound guidance is recommended when available.

Low in-hospital mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 receiving thromboprophylaxis: data from the multicentre observational START-COVID Register

COVID-19 infection causes respiratory pathology with severe interstitial pneumonia and extra-pulmonary complications; in particular, it may predispose to thromboembolic disease. The current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, however, the optimal heparin dosage treatment is not well-established. We conducted a multicentre, Italian, retrospective, observational study on COVID-19 patients admitted to ordinary wards, to describe clinical characteristic of patients at admission, bleeding and thrombotic events occurring during hospital stay. The strategies used for thromboprophylaxis and its role on patient outcome were, also, described. 1091 patients hospitalized were included in the START-COVID-19 Register. During hospital stay, 769 (70.7%) patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs: low molecular weight heparin (the great majority enoxaparin), fondaparinux, or unfractioned heparin. These patients were more frequently affected by comorbidities, such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism, neurological disease, and cancer with respect to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. During hospital stay, 1.2% patients had a major bleeding event. All patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs; 5.4%, had venous thromboembolism [30.5% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 66.1% pulmonary embolism (PE), and 3.4% patients had DVT + PE]. In our cohort the mortality rate was 18.3%. Heparin use was independently associated with survival in patients aged ≥ 59 years at multivariable analysis. We confirmed the high mortality rate of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in ordinary wards. Treatment with antithrombotic drugs is significantly associated with a reduction of mortality rates especially in patients older than 59 years.

Management of Vascular Thrombosis in Patients with Thrombocytopenia

Platelets play critical roles in hemostasis and thrombosis. While low platelet counts increase the risk of bleeding, antithrombotic drugs, including anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, are used to treat thromboembolic events. Thus, the management of thrombosis in patients with low platelet counts is challenging with hardly any evidence available to guide treatment. Recognition of the underlying cause of thrombocytopenia is essential for assessing the bleeding risk and tailoring therapeutic options. A typical clinical scenario is the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients experiencing transient thrombocytopenia during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In such patients, the severity of thrombocytopenia, thrombus burden, clinical symptoms, and the timing of VTE relative to thrombocytopenia must be considered. In clinical practice, distinct hematological disorders characterized by low platelet counts and a thrombogenic state require specific diagnostics and treatment. These include the antiphospholipid syndrome, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and (spontaneous) HIT syndromes, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

Evaluation of adherence of patients with atrial fibrillation to anticoagulant therapy at the outpatient stage of treatment

Despite clinical guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) patient adherence to oral anticoagulants (OACs) in routine clinical practice remains low. Assessing the factors affecting adherence to the OACs regimen and developing strategies for its improvement is important. Aim. To assess the adherence of patients with AF to the prescribed anticoagulant therapy at the outpatient stage of treatment. Methodology. The object of the study was 165 patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing treatment in a specialized cardiology department or receiving outpatient treatment in a specialized cardiological dispensary in Saratov from February 2018 to December 2019. After 3, 6, 12 months, a telephone contact with the patients was carried out, a specially designed questionnaire was filled out, in which the anticoagulant therapy received by AF patients was reflected, the Morisky-Green questionnaire was filled out, the answers of patients about the reasons for skipping or stopping the administration of the OACs were recorded. Results. After 3 months. 16.6 % of AF patients replaced the OACs intake with antiplatelet agents, 16 % refused antithrombotic therapy; 43.1 % of AF patients were adherent to OACs. After 6 months. antiplatelet agents were taken by 24.5 % patients (p<0.05), 11.9 % completely stopped taking antithrombotic drugs; 30.8 % of patients were adherent to OACs (p<0.05). After 12 29,5 % patients replaced OACs treatment with antiplatelet agents, 7.6 % patients did not take any antithrombotic drugs; 31.8 % of AF patients were adherent to OACs. The most common reasons for a decrease in the adherence to OACs therapy were the cost of drugs, lack of understanding of the value of OACs administration in AF, and the lack of appreciable effect of OACs administration. Conclusion. At the outpatient stage of treatment, there was an insufficient level of adherence of AFpatients to OACs treatment.

COVID-19 and Venous Thromboembolism: From Pathological Mechanisms to Clinical Management

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is becoming a global pandemic, is caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. In COVID-19, thrombotic events occur frequently, mainly venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is closely related to disease severity and clinical prognosis. Compared with historical controls, the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized and critical COVID-19 patients is incredibly high. However, the pathophysiology of thrombosis and the best strategies for thrombosis prevention in COVID-19 remain unclear, thus needing further exploration. Virchow’s triad elements have been proposed as important risk factors for thrombotic diseases. Therefore, the three factors outlined by Virchow can also be applied to the formation of venous thrombosis in the COVID-19 setting. A thorough understanding of the complex interactions in these processes is important in the search for effective treatments for COVID-19. In this work, we focus on the pathological mechanisms of VTE in COVID-19 from the aspects of endothelial dysfunction, hypercoagulability, abnormal blood flow. We also discuss the treatment of VTE as well as the ongoing clinical trials of heparin anticoagulant therapy. In addition, according to the pathophysiological mechanism of COVID-19-associated thrombosis, we extended the range of antithrombotic drugs including antiplatelet drugs, antifibrinolytic drugs, and anti-inflammatory drugs, hoping to find effective drug therapy and improve the prognosis of VTE in COVID-19 patients.

Snake Venom Botrocetin Induces GPIb-Independent Platelet Aggregation

Abstract Introduction：Snake venom-derived botrocetin facilitates von Willebrand factor (VWF) binding to GPIbα, and has been used clinically for the detection of von Willebrand disease (VWD) and GPIb-related disorders. Botrocetin has also been widely used experimentally for the development and characterization of potential antithrombotic drugs targeting the GPIb-VWF axis. Although compelling evidence suggests GPIb is responsible for botrocetin-induced VWF binding and platelet aggregation, some reports suggest that botrocetin could induce platelet aggregation in some Bernard-Soulier syndrome (BSS) patients who lack a functional GPIb complex. However, the alternative mechanism for botrocetin-induced BSS platelet aggregation and the receptor(s) mediating this action are unclear. Methods: Botrocetin was purified from the lyophilized venom of Bothrops jararaca using ion-exchange column chromatography. Light transmission aggregometry assay was performed using platelet-rich plasma (PRP) from human, wild type (WT) mice, GPIbα-deficient mice, αIIbβ3-deficient mice and VWF-deficient mice, or CHO cells stably transfected with αIIbβ3 integrin. O-sialoglycoprotein endopeptidase (OSGE) was used to cleave the N-terminal extracellular domain of GPIbα. The binding of botrocetin, VWF and fibrinogen to platelets from WT or the gene-deficient mice were measured by flow cytometry. Antibodies against GPIbα (SZ2, NIT A) and integrin αIIbβ3 (abciximab, JON/A, M1, PSI E1) were used to investigate the binding site of botrocetin. Perfusion chamber assay was used to measure thrombus formation under different shear stresses. Results: We discovered that botrocetin induced aggregation of human platelets lacking the N-terminal extracellular domain of GPIbα and platelets from GPIbα-deficient mice in the presence of VWF. This VWF-dependent, GPIbα-independent platelet aggregation induced by botrocetin was inhibited by αIIbβ3 antagonists. Botrocetin also induced aggregation of CHO cells stably transfected with αIIbβ3 in VWF-dependent manner. Further experiments with gel-filtered platelets showed that botrocetin competitively bound to the ligand-binding area exposed on αIIbβ3 and blocked fibrinogen and other ligands from binding to the active state of αIIbβ3 in the absence of VWF. Botrocetin inhibited platelet aggregation and thrombus formation in VWF-deficient mice. Conclusion: Integrin αIIbβ3 is the alternative receptor that mediates VWF-dependent, GPIb-independent platelet aggregation induced by botrocetin. However, via targeting αIIbβ3, botrocetin itself inhibits platelet aggregation in the absence of VWF. These results demonstrate versatility in the mechanism of botrocetin, which may provide snakes containing this toxin the adaptability necessary to aggregate platelets/thrombocytes of different prey or predators. Our data reveals a previously unknown role of botrocetin in the integrin-VWF interaction and also provides insight into developing new antithrombotic drugs that target the active conformation of integrin αIIbβ3. The target switching of botrocetin between GPIb-VWF and αIIbβ3-VWF may explain the possible misdiagnosis of the GPIb-related congenital disorders evaluated by botrocetin. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Individualized Versus Standardized Risk Assessment in Patients at High Risk for Adverse Drug Reactions (The IDrug Randomized Controlled Trial)–Never Change a Running System?

The aim of this study was to compare effects of an individualized with a standardized risk assessment for adverse drug reactions to improve drug treatment with antithrombotic drugs in older adults. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in general practitioner (GP) offices. Patients aged 60 years and older, multi-morbid, taking antithrombotic drugs and at least one additional drug continuously were randomized to individualized and standardized risk assessment groups. Patients were followed up for nine months. A composite endpoint defined as at least one bleeding, thromboembolic event or death reported via a trigger list was used. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. In total, N = 340 patients were enrolled from 43 GP offices. Patients in the individualized risk assessment group met the composite endpoint more often than in the standardized group (OR 1.63 [95%CI 1.02-2.63]) with multiple adjustments. The OR was higher in patients on phenprocoumon treatment (OR 1.99 [95%CI 1.05-3.76]), and not significant on DOAC treatment (OR 1.52 [95%CI 0.63-3.69]). Pharmacogenenetic variants of CYP2C9, 2C19 and VKORC1 were not observed to be associated with the composite endpoint. The results of this study may indicate that the time point for implementing individualized risk assessments is of importance.