Connors, Jean M.

Antithrombotic therapy plays an important role in reducing stroke recurrence. For noncardioembolic stroke, multiple trials have demonstrated the efficacy of antiplatelet monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention. In select situations, such as short-term treatment in the acute period after a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack, dual-antiplatelet therapy has demonstrated superiority to monotherapy. Multiple trials have tested more aggressive strategies using long-term combination antiplatelet medications or full-dose anticoagulation with limited evidence of a reduction in ischemic events but a relatively consistent increased risk of bleeding. Emerging new agents targeting factor XI/XIa may uncouple necessary hemostasis from pathological thrombosis and offer promise for enhancing secondary prevention of stroke without increasing bleeding. The recently positive OCEANIC-STROKE trial (Oral Factor Eleven A Inhibitor Asundexian as Novel Antithrombotic) testing dual-pathway inhibition with the factor XIa inhibitor asundexian in combination with antiplatelet therapy represents a major advance in antithrombotic therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. This review summarizes the current state of the evidence for antithrombotic therapy in secondary stroke prevention after noncardioembolic stroke and discusses completed and ongoing trials of novel factor XI/XIa inhibitors for stroke prevention.

See the Reply by Semla and Steinman in this issue.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Background : Patients (pts) with COVID-19 are reported to have increased risk of venous thromboembolism yet bleeding has been an under recognized complication. Rates of bleeding remain unexamined in all patients especially in pts with cancer and COVID-19. Aim: To estimate the incidence of bleeding complication in patients with cancer and COVID 19 Methods: The CCC19 international registry (NCT04354701) aims to investigate complications of COVID-19 in pts with cancer. Our aim was to investigate the frequency of bleeding in hospitalized adult pts with cancer andCOVID-19, enrolled between March 16, 2020 and Feb 8, 2021. The incidence of bleeding complications was captured as defined by CCC19 and included both major and non major bleeding . Associated baseline clinic-pathologic prognostic factors and outcomes such as need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality rates were assessed Results :3849 pts met analysis inclusion criteria. Bleeding was reported in 276 (7%) pts with median age of 70years; incidence was 6.6 % in females and 7.6 % in males, 6.5% in non-Hispanic white pts, 8.2 % in non-Hispanic Black pts, and 7.8 % in Hispanic pts. 74% had solid cancer and 29% had hematologic malignancies, 33% had received anti-cancer therapy in preceding 30 days, and 8% had surgery within 4weeks. In pts taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications at baseline, 7.2% developed bleeding. Need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and total mortality were significantly higher in those with bleeding complications compared to those without, p<0.05 Conclusion : We describe the incidence of bleeding in a large cohort of pts with cancer and COVID-19. Bleeding events were observed in those with adverse outcomes including mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and high mortality; the overall mortality of 43% in patients with bleeding complications is especially notable. This important complication may reflect underlying COVID-19 pathophysiology as well as iatrogenic causes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Diagnostica Stago: Honoraria. Zon: AMAGMA AND RLZ: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Byeff: Pfizer, BMS, Takeda,Teva, Merck, United health: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Nagaraj: Novartis: Research Funding. Hwang: astrazaneca,Merck,bayer, Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. McKay: Myovant: Consultancy; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Calithera: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dendreon: Consultancy; Caris: Other: Serves as a molecular tumor board ; Vividion: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding. Warner: Westat, Hemonc.org: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Connors: Pfizer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Alnylam: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy. Rosovsky: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Inari: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dova: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is challenging because these patients have increased risks of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding, along with patient-specific and cancer-related factors that influence the approach to treatment. Historically, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), given for both initial and long-term treatment, has been the preferred approach recommended by practice guidelines. Most recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines indicate that the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are preferred for patients without gastric or gastroesophageal lesions. DOACs have been associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal and possibly genitourinary cancers, and DOACs should either not be used (especially in those with intact intraluminal tumors) or be used with caution in patients with these cancers. Fatal or life-threatening bleeding occurs with similar frequency with DOACs or LMWH, and most major bleeding with DOACs can be managed with transfusion and standard measures. The patient's willingness and ability to comply with LMWH injections, and their treatment preference, should also be considered. Patients with cancer who have VTE should be treated with anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 months. Anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely while cancer is active or under treatment or if there are persistent risk factors for recurrent VTE. This article summarizes the evidence from clinical trials of LMWH and DOACs that underpins the NCCN guideline recommendations, addresses several controversies and caveats regarding anticoagulant treatment, and offers evidence-based, practical suggestions on patient selection for treatment with DOACs. Implications for Practice Several randomized trials support the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). These agents come with unique risks and patient- and cancer-specific variables that must be evaluated during the course of a patient's cancer care. This narrative review discusses findings from clinical trials of low-molecular-weight heparin and DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, evidence that supports the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. A personalized approach to treatment is proposed that addresses patient selection for treatment with DOACs, factors that influence efficacy and safety, controversies and caveats, and suggestions for their resolution in clinical practice.

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated optimized diagnostic accuracy in utilizing higher antiheparin–platelet factor 4 (PF4) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) optical density (OD) thresholds for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We describe the incidence of positive serotonin release assay (SRA) results, as well as performance characteristics, for antiheparin–PF4 ELISA thresholds ≥0.4, ≥0.8, and ≥1.0 OD units in the diagnosis of HIT at our institution. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a single-center retrospective chart review on adult inpatients with a differential diagnosis of HIT evaluated by both antiheparin–PF4 ELISA and SRA from 2012 to 2014. The major endpoints were to assess incidence of positive SRA results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy at antiheparin–PF4 ELISA values ≥0.4 OD units when compared to values ≥0.8 and ≥1.0 OD units. Clinical characteristics, including demographics, laboratory values, clinical and safety outcomes, length of stay, and mortality, were collected. Results: A total of 140 patients with 140 antiheparin–PF4 ELISA and SRA values were evaluated, of which 23 patients were SRA positive (16.4%) and 117 patients were SRA negative (83.6%). We identified a sensitivity of 91.3% versus 82.6% and 73.9%, specificity of 61.5% versus 87.2% and 91.5%, PPV of 31.8% versus 55.9% and 63.0%, NPV of 97.3% versus 96.2% and 94.7%, and accuracy of 66.4% versus 86.4% and 88.6% at antiheparin–PF4 ELISA thresholds ≥0.4, ≥0.8, and ≥1.0 OD units, respectively. Conclusion: Our study suggests an increased antiheparin–PF4 ELISA threshold of 0.8 or 1.0 OD units enhances specificity, PPV, and accuracy while maintaining NPV with decreased sensitivity.