Venous Thromboembolism

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

More than 40 medical conditions were positively associated with having a new diagnosis of osteoarthritis according to research presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
 

Comorbidity and OA

One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.

“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.

“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.

While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.

“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.

Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
 

Results and perspective

Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.

Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.

Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.

“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.

“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”

One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.

“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.

“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.

The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.