Search

There may be many predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients, but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients and searched Medline and EMBASE from inception through May 2018. We considered studies that identified potential prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized adult medical patients. Reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Of 69 410 citations, we included 17 studies in our analysis: 14 that reported on VTE, and 3 that reported on bleeding. For VTE, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age; elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and fibrinogen levels; tachycardia; thrombocytosis; leukocytosis; fever; leg edema; lower Barthel Index (BI) score; immobility; paresis; previous history of VTE; thrombophilia; malignancy; critical illness; and infections. For bleeding, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, sex, anemia, obesity, low hemoglobin, gastroduodenal ulcers, rehospitalization, critical illness, thrombocytopenia, blood dyscrasias, hepatic disease, renal failure, antithrombotic medication, and presence of a central venous catheter. Elevated CRP, a lower BI, a history of malignancy, and elevated heart rate are not included in most VTE risk assessment models. This study informs risk prediction in the management of hospitalized medical patients for VTE and bleeding; it also informs guidelines for VTE prevention and future research.

BackgroundCOVID-19–related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveThese evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.MethodsASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.ResultsThe panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation.ConclusionsThis recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.

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

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Conclusions: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available., Visual Abstract

Risk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients inform appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis. Our aim was to use a novel approach for selecting risk factors for VTE and bleeding to be included in RAMs. First, we used the results of a systematic review of all candidate factors. Second, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the identified factors. Third, we using a structured approach to select factors to develop the RAMs, by building on clinical and methodological expertise. The expert panel made judgments on whether to include, potentially include, or exclude risk factors, according to domains of the GRADE approach and the Delphi method. The VTE RAM included age >60 years, previous VTE, acute infections, immobility, acute paresis, active malignancy, critical illness, and known thrombophilia. The bleeding RAM included age ≥65 years, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, active gastroduodenal ulcers, hepatic disease, recent bleeding, and critical illness. We identified acute infection as a factor that was not considered in widely used RAMs. Also, we identified factors that require further research to confirm or refute their importance in a VTE RAM (eg, D-dimer). We excluded autoimmune disease which is included in the IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) bleeding RAM. Our results also suggest that sex, malignancy, and use of central venous catheters (factors in the IMPROVE bleeding RAM) require further research. In conclusion, our study presents a novel approach to systematically identifying and assessing risk factors to be included or further explored during RAM development.

Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.

Background As of Feb 14, 2014, UNRWA had registered almost 53 000 Palestinian refugees from Syria (PRS) who had fled to Lebanon as the result of the conflict in Syria. Half of the PRS had gone to one of the 12 Palestinian camps, which are overcrowded and of poor infrastructure. Consequently, there is concern for the wellbeing of PRS; in particular, their health status and access to medical care. Little attention has been given to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the acute phases of emergencies. Therefore, an assessment of the prevalence of NCDs among PRS, as well as the patterns of use of available health care services by PRS, is warranted. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in April, 2018, with 1100 PRS residing inside and outside refugee camps across all governorates of Lebanon. A listing of all PRS families was the sampling frame. A random sample of families was selected and contacted, and then one adult randomly selected from each family was approached for data collection. Pregnant women and participants who were too ill to participate were excluded. After obtaining informed verbal consent, we did face-to-face interviews to collect data on household details (such as type of settlement, source of income) and sociodemographic information, major NCDs (for the household representative), lifestyle behaviours, and health-care use. We invited all participants to UNRWA clinics for physical and biochemical measurements. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the American University of Beirut. Findings We surveyed 959 PRS (59% male [465], 82% married [785], mean age 43 years [SD 12]). A quarter of those interviewed had at least one NCD; the most prevalent were hypertension (23%; 221 of 959), rheumatic diseases (17%; 166), cardiovascular diseases (CVDs, 13%; 126), diabetes (13%; 124), and chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) (10%; 100). All these NCDs were more prevalent among PRS inside camps than in those residing outside camps, except for diabetes. Most participants who had been diagnosed with NCDs were adhering to their prescribed medications (90–98%). However, of those reporting CVDs, only 56% (71 of 126) had attended at least one follow-up appointment, and of those reporting rheumatic diseases, only 33% (55 of 166) had attended at least one follow-up appointment. About half of participants reported that they checked their blood pressure (55%; 528 of 959) or blood glucose (45%; 430). 111 of 221 (50%) participants with hypertension monitored their blood pressure, and 78 of 124 (63%) participants with diabetes monitored their blood glucose. 133 participants attended UNRWA clinics for measurements; 40% (54) had obesity (>30 kg/cm2), 10% (13) had elevated blood pressure, 12% (16) had stage 1 hypertension, and 8% (10) had stage 2 hypertension. Most participants had normal glucose (67%; 89 of 133), cholesterol (65%; 87), triglyceride (58%; 77), and glycosylated haemoglobin levels (64; 85). A substantial proportion of participants who were tested had undiagnosed diabetes (14%; 33 of 108 reporting no diabetes), undiagnosed hypertension (23%; 19 of 81), uncontrolled diabetes (79% of participants with diabetes; 19 of 24), or uncontrolled hypertension (64% of participants with hypertension; 29 of 45). Interpretation Further study is needed to understand why the prevalence of NCDs among PRS residing in Palestinian camps is higher than among those living outside, and to understand whether and why access to medicines is a problem, particularly outside camps. The burden of NCDs among PRS is high and their access to services is not optimal; therefore UNRWA should pay special attention to NCD services in this population. UNRWA should invest in efforts to increase awareness of free blood pressure and blood glucose monitoring services in its clinics, and could actively offer free testing in public areas inside camps. Doctors at UNRWA clinics should recommend that patients monitor their disease more frequently and educate them on how to do so. A limitation of the study was the low percentage of participants who attended UNRWA clinics for physical and biochemical measurements. Funding UNRWA.

Norovirus (NoV) is considered the second leading cause of viral acute gastroenteritis (AGE). To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews assessing the role of NoV in AGE in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Consequently, we conducted an extensive systematic literature review on articles studying NoV in the 24 countries of the MENA region during the past 15 years (2000-2015). The methods and reporting were set according to the 2015 PRISMA-P and based on the elements from the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). We retrieved 38 studies meeting our predefined inclusion criteria and were used to extract full data. Studies reporting on NoV were conducted in 15 out of the 24 countries of the region. The reported NoV infection rates in MENA countries ranged between 0.82% and 36.84%. The majority of studies were clinical observational studies assessing NoV rates mainly among children. Participants were recruited from in- and outpatient clinics. NoV infection was reported all year round with with peaks observed mainly during cold months. GII.4 was the predominant genotype detected in stool of participants as reported by 16 out of 25 studies (64%). Overall, there is an increasing recognition of NoV as an important causative agent of AGE across all age groups in the MENA region. Further studies are needed to assess the national and the regional burden of NoV among different age groups, its molecular diversity and seasonal variability.

Rotavirus (RV) is the leading cause of severe acute gastroenteritis (AGE) worldwide. Consequently, we conducted a systematic literature review on articles studying RV in the 25 countries of the MENA region during the past 15 years (2000–2015). The methods and reporting were set according to the 2015 preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) and based on the elements from the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Our literature search identified 169 studies meeting our predefined inclusion criteria. Studies reporting on RV were conducted in 19 out of the 24 countries of the MENA region. The largest number of studies was reported in Turkey (n = 32), Iran (n = 31), Saudi Arabia (n = 19) and Egypt (n = 17). The majority of studies reporting on RV gastroenteritis rates were clinical observational studies. In 115 studies out of 169, RV was reported among in-patients whereas 35 studies reported RV among outpatients. The predominantly reported RV genotype in the region was G1[P8] followed by G2[P4] and G9[P8]. The majority of studies (n = 108) were conducted among children less than 5 years of age whereas the remaining studies reported on AGE among other age groups and rarely adults. In MENA countries, RV infection was reported all year round with peaks described in cold as well as hot months. This systematic review provides a current update on the epidemiology of RV-associated gastroenteritis in countries of the MENA region and draws attention to the major gaps existing in the continuous monitoring of RV.