Daniel M. Witt

Evidence-Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND High-quality anticoagulation management is required to keep these narrow therapeutic index medications as effective and safe as possible. This article focuses on the common important management questions for which, at a minimum, low-quality published evidence is available to guide best practices. METHODS The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. RESULTS Most practical clinical questions regarding the management of anticoagulation, both oral and parenteral, have not been adequately addressed by randomized trials. We found sufficient evidence for summaries of recommendations for 23 questions, of which only two are strong rather than weak recommendations. Strong recommendations include targeting an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 for patients on vitamin K antagonist therapy (Grade 1B) and not routinely using pharmacogenetic testing for guiding doses of vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1B). Weak recommendations deal with such issues as loading doses, initiation overlap, monitoring frequency, vitamin K supplementation, patient self-management, weight and renal function adjustment of doses, dosing decision support, drug interactions to avoid, and prevention and management of bleeding complications. We also address anticoagulation management services and intensive patient education. CONCLUSIONS We offer guidance for many common anticoagulation-related management problems. Most anticoagulation management questions have not been adequately studied.

Safety of prothrombin complex concentrates for rapid anticoagulation reversal of vitamin K antagonists

Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) are recommended as the treatment of choice in warfarin-related coagulopathy. However, the risk of thromboembolic complications associated with their use is not well defined. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the rate of thromboembolic complications in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) treated with PCCs for bleeding or before urgent surgery. Medline and Embase databases were searched. Two reviewers performed study selection and extracted data independently. Studies providing data on incidence of thromboembolic complications in VKA-treated patients were eligible for the study. Weighted mean proportion of the rate of thromboembolic complications and the mortality rate were calculated. Twenty-seven studies (1,032 patients) were included. Seven studies used 3-factor, and 20 4-factor PCCs. Twelve patients had a thromboembolic complication (weighted mean 1.4%; 95% CI 0.8-2.1), of which two were fatal. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 1.8% (95% CI 1.0-3.0) in patients treated with 4-factor PCCs, and 0.7% (95% CI 0.0-2.4) in patients treated with 3-factor PCCs. Total mortality rate was 10.6% (95% CI 5.9-16.6). In conclusion, our results suggest there is a low but quantifiable risk of thromboembolism in VKA-treated patients receiving PCCs for anticoagulation reversal. These findings should be confirmed in randomised, controlled trials.

Oral vitamin K versus placebo to correct excessive anticoagulation in patients receiving warfarin: a randomized trial.

Context Vitamin K decreases the international normalized ratio (INR) in overanticoagulated patients who receive warfarin therapy, but its effect on clinical outcomes is less clear. Contribution Trial investigators detected no differences in the frequency of bleeding, thromboembolism, or death among overanticoagulated patients who received warfarin therapy and were randomly assigned to receive low-dose vitamin K or placebo. Caution The study was underpowered to detect differences in major bleeding. Implication Low-dose vitamin K corrects the INR in overanticoagulated patients who received warfarin therapy, but it has little effect on clinical outcomes. Withdrawal of warfarin may be all that is necessary to manage elevated INRs. The Editors Warfarin is a remarkably effective drug for primary and secondary prevention of arterial and venous thromboembolism. Among commonly used medications, warfarin is unique because its doseresponse characteristics are highly unpredictable, varying both among and within individuals over time. As a result, warfarin therapy requires ongoing monitoring using the international normalized ratio (INR), a value that reflects the degree to which warfarin has reduced coagulation factor levels and the coagulant potential of blood (1). For most indications, an INR range of 2.0 to 3.0 is targeted; INR values less than 2.0 are associated with an increased risk for thromboembolism, and INR values greater than 4.0 are associated with an increase in bleeding complications. The risk for bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, increases markedly as the INR exceeds 4.5 (13). Even in clinics dedicated to warfarin management, INRs are outside the therapeutic range one third to one half the time (4). When managing a patient with an INR greater than 4.5 who is not bleeding, clinicians generally either withhold warfarin treatment and allow the INR to decrease to the desired value or administer vitamin K (orally or intravenously) to more rapidly reduce the INR (1, 510). Small randomized trials have shown that a single dose of low-dose oral vitamin K (for example, 1 to 2.5 mg) effectively reduces the INR in otherwise-stable overanticoagulated patients within 24 hours of its administration; however, these studies were not large enough to determine whether low-dose vitamin K reduces bleeding without increasing the risk for thromboembolism (1115). A recent systematic review (16) supported this observation. To determine whether oral vitamin K is indicated in overanticoagulated patients who are not bleeding, we did a randomized trial in which we allocated oral vitamin K or placebo, 1.25 mg, to patients who presented with an INR of 4.5 to 10.0. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of all forms of bleeding events during the first 90 days. Our hypothesis that bleeding events would be reduced was based on our previously published, smaller studies of low-dose oral vitamin K administered to various patient groups. In these studies, we found a consistent and rapid decrease in the INR after low-dose vitamin K was administered (13, 15, 1722). Methods Study Patients We identified patients with INRs of 4.5 to 10.0 in participating outpatient anticoagulant therapy clinics. We screened patients as they presented for routine INR assessment and considered them for eligibility if they were receiving warfarin therapy with a target INR of 2.0 to 3.5, their most recent INR was between 4.5 and 10.0 in the past 24 hours, and they were not bleeding. We excluded patients if discontinuation of warfarin therapy was scheduled and if they were younger than 18 years, had a life expectancy less than 10 days, had an indication for acute normalization of their INR (such as imminent surgery), had a known severe liver disease, had a history of a major bleeding event within 1 month, had a known bleeding disorder, had received thrombolytic therapy within 48 hours, had a platelet count less than 50109 cells/L, could not take oral medications, had a known allergy to vitamin K, or could not return for laboratory or clinical monitoring. Study staff at each participating anticoagulant therapy clinic approached patients who met inclusion criteria for consent to participate. This study ran in parallel with a cohort study in which patients with INRs greater than 10.0 received oral vitamin K, 2.5 mg. Patients were otherwise identical to those enrolled in this study, and we followed them for similar outcome events. The results of the concurrent cohort study will be presented in a subsequent paper. Randomization and Treatment We instructed all eligible, consenting patients to withhold warfarin for 1 day and randomly assigned them to receive a capsule containing either vitamin K, 1.25 mg, or placebo. Randomization was done by using a computer-generated random-number table at the coordinating and methods center and was stratified by clinical center. Vitamin K capsules were compounded from 5-mg vitamin K tablets (Merck & Co., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey) by a commercial pharmacy with Health Canada approval (Clinical Trials Application control number 092635). Placebo capsules contained inert filler and were indistinguishable from the capsules that contained vitamin K. Random allocation of patients was accomplished when site-specific study personnel dispensed the next numbered study drug container at each clinical center; thus, patients, treating clinicians, and research coordinators were unaware of treatment allocation. In 2 centers, we monitored the INR of outpatients in clinics or laboratories outside the clinical center. In such centers, we obtained consent for the study by telephone, and the study drug was shipped within hours to the patients home by using a courier service. In all cases, we confirmed receipt and consumption of the study drug on the day of randomization by telephone. In the remaining centers, in which patients were seen in person, consent and study drug administration occurred at the same time that the elevated INR was detected. Follow-up and Outcome Measures At enrollment, we advised patients to promptly seek medical evaluation if they developed signs or symptoms of bleeding or thromboembolism. At minimum, we assessed patients by telephone or in person on days 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 90 after randomization. Additional contact and INR sampling necessary to manage the patients anticoagulant therapy were done at the discretion of the patients physician. At each follow-up, we sought signs and symptoms of bleeding and thromboembolism and collected details about all such events. We asked patients a focused series of questions to help them recall these events. We reviewed and abstracted medical records of all suspected bleeding episodes, thromboembolism, and deaths. Our primary outcome measure was the frequency of bleeding events during the 90 days after randomization. We defined major bleeding as fatal bleeding, bleeding requiring transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells, bleeding resulting in a therapeutic intervention (such as endoscopy), or objectively confirmed bleeding into an enclosed space. We defined minor bleeding as bleeding resulting in a medical assessment that did not meet criteria as a major bleeding event. We defined trivial bleeding as all patient-reported bleeding events that did not result in a medical assessment. We combined all reported bleeding events (major, minor, and trivial) for this analysis. We chose to combine these events because our clinical experience suggested that reducing medically unimportant but bothersome bleeding, such as epistaxis, bruising, and menorrhagia, was a clinically important goal for our patients; patients with a minor or trivial bleeding event may be at greater risk for subsequent major bleeding; and the frequency of major bleeding was likely to be very low, calling into question the feasibility of a study powered to detect differences in major bleeding events. Secondary outcome measures included the frequency of major bleeding events, objectively confirmed venous or arterial thromboembolism, and death during the 90 days after randomization. We chose the 90-day period on the basis of our previous studies wherein we found a significant reduction in bleeding events (90 days) after the administration of similar doses of oral vitamin K (13). We hypothesized that low-dose oral vitamin K might influence a bleeding event during this extended period, because even small doses of this highly lipophilic drug might have an extended influence on INR control (and thus the risk for bleeding and thrombosis). In post hoc analyses, we examined the frequency of all bleeding and major bleeding events in the first 7 days and the number of clinical events in patients who were older than 70 years at enrollment. An independent adjudication committee, blinded to treatment allocation and not otherwise involved in the study, reviewed all bleeding events, thromboembolism, and deaths. Confirmation of venous thromboembolism required a nononcompressible venous segment on ultrasonography, an intraluminal filling defect on venography or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography, or a segmental (or larger) mismatch defect on ventilationperfusion lung scan. Arterial thromboembolism required either direct surgical visualization of thrombus; an intraluminal filling defect on angiography; or clear evidence of a new ischemic event on an objective test, such as electrocardiography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging. We advised clinics to reinstitute warfarin therapy once the INR was within the therapeutic reference interval after administration of the study drug. The clinicians who cared for the patients determined the warfarin dose when the drug was readministered. Target INR ranges for individual patients did not change as a result of the elevated INR that led to enrollment. Statistical Analysis Our primary analysis was an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportions of patien

Outcomes and predictors of very stable INR control during chronic anticoagulation therapy

For patients on warfarin therapy, an international normalized ratio (INR) recall interval not exceeding 4 weeks has traditionally been recommended. Less frequent INR monitoring may be feasible in stable patients. We sought to identify patients with stable INRs (defined as having INR values exclusively within the INR range) and comparator patients (defined as at least one INR outside the INR range) in a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Occurrences of thromboembolism, bleeding, and death were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of stable INR control. There were 2504 stable and 3569 comparator patients. The combined rates of bleeding and thromboembolism were significantly lower in stable patients. Independent predictors of stable INR control were age older than 70 years and the absence of comorbid heart failure and diabetes. Stable patients were significantly less likely to have target INR of 3.0 or higher or chronic diseases. We hypothesize that many patients demonstrating stable INR control could be safely treated with INR recall intervals greater than the traditional 4 weeks.

Delivery of Optimized Anticoagulant Therapy: Consensus Statement from the Anticoagulation Forum

Objective: To provide recommendations, policies, and procedures pertaining to the provision of optimized anticoagulation therapy designed to achieve desired clinical endpoints while minimizing the risk of anticoagulant-related adverse outcomes (principally bleeding and thrombosis). Study Selection and Data Extraction: Due to this documents scope, the medical literature was searched using a variety of strategies. When possible, recommendations are supported by available evidence; however, because this paper deals with processes and systems of care, high-quality evidence (eg, controlled trials) is unavailable. In these cases, recommendations represent the consensus opinion of all authors who constitute the Board of Directors of The Anticoagulation Forum, an organization dedicated to optimizing anticoagulation care. The Board is composed of physicians, pharmacists, and nurses with demonstrated expertise and significant collective experience in the management of patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. Data Synthesis: Recommendations for delivering optimized anticoagulation therapy were developed collaboratively by the authors and are summarized in 9 key areas: (I) Qualifications of Personnel, (II) Supervision, (III) Care Management and Coordination, (IV) Documentation. (V) Patient Education, (VI) Patient Selection and Assessment, (VII) Laboratory Monitoring, (VIII) Initiation and Stabilization of Warfarin Therapy, and (IX) Maintenance of Therapy. Recommendations are intended to inform the development of care systems containing elements with demonstrated benefit in improvement of anticoagulation therapy outcomes. Recommendations for delivering optimized anticoagulation therapy are intended to apply to all clinicians involved in the care of outpatients receiving anticoagulation therapy, regardless of the structure and setting in which that care is delivered. Conclusions: Anticoagulation therapy, although potentially life-saving, has inherent risks. Whether a patient is managed in a solo practice or a specialized anticoagulation management service, a systematic approach to the key elements outlined herein will reduce the likelihood of adverse events. The need for continued research to validate optimal practices for managing anticoagulation therapy is acknowledged.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oral phytonadione for excessive anticoagulation.

Study Objective. To compare the efficacy of managing excessive anticoagulation in the absence of bleeding by either omitting warfarin therapy alone or administering oral phytonadione in addition to omitting warfarin therapy.

Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy. Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed

BACKGROUND High-quality anticoagulation management is required to keep these narrow therapeutic index medications as effective and safe as possible. This article focuses on the common important management questions for which, at a minimum, low-quality published evidence is available to guide best practices. METHODS The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. RESULTS Most practical clinical questions regarding the management of anticoagulation, both oral and parenteral, have not been adequately addressed by randomized trials. We found sufficient evidence for summaries of recommendations for 23 questions, of which only two are strong rather than weak recommendations. Strong recommendations include targeting an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 for patients on vitamin K antagonist therapy (Grade 1B) and not routinely using pharmacogenetic testing for guiding doses of vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1B). Weak recommendations deal with such issues as loading doses, initiation overlap, monitoring frequency, vitamin K supplementation, patient self-management, weight and renal function adjustment of doses, dosing decision support, drug interactions to avoid, and prevention and management of bleeding complications. We also address anticoagulation management services and intensive patient education. CONCLUSIONS We offer guidance for many common anticoagulation-related management problems. Most anticoagulation management questions have not been adequately studied.

Twelve-month outcomes and predictors of very stable INR control in prevalent warfarin users

Summary.  Background:  For patients on warfarin therapy an international normalized ratio (INR) recall interval not exceeding 4 weeks has traditionally been recommended. For patients whose INR values are nearly always therapeutic, less frequent INR monitoring may be feasible.

Incidence and predictors of bleeding or thrombosis after polypectomy in patients receiving and not receiving anticoagulation therapy

Summary.  Background and aims: To assess the effect of warfarin anticoagulation therapy (AC) on the incidence of colon bleeding after elective colonoscopy with polypectomy and to identify independent predictors of post‐polypectomy colon bleeding. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. Patients interrupting warfarin AC therapy for polypectomy (AC group) were matched on age (± 3 years) with up to two patients who underwent polypectomy but were not receiving AC (non‐AC group). Data were extracted from electronic medical, pharmacy and laboratory claims and records and manual medical chart review. Incidence rates of colon bleeding requiring hospitalization, other gastrointestinal bleeding, thrombosis and death in the 30 days post‐polypectomy were compared between groups. Multivariate regression techniques were used to identify independent predictors of post‐polypectomy colon bleeding. Results: A total of 425 AC group patients were matched to 800 non‐AC group patients. Post‐polypectomy colon bleeding occurred more often in AC group patients (2.6% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.005). There were no differences in the rates of other outcomes (P > 0.05). Independent predictors of colon bleeding included AC group status [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 11.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.3–57.3], number of polyps removed (AOR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1–1.4) and male gender (AOR = 9.2, 95% CI = 1.1–74.9). Conclusions: The incidence of post‐polypectomy colon bleeding was higher in patients receiving AC even although warfarin was interrupted for the procedure. Independent predictors of colon bleeding were identified as: receiving AC, removal of multiple polyps and male gender. Our findings suggest that additional methods to reduce the likelihood of post‐polypectomy colon bleeding in AC patients should be investigated.

Outcomes Associated With Combined Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy

BACKGROUND The use of antiplatelet therapy in combination with oral anticoagulants remains controversial. The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the incidence of adverse and coronary event rates between patients receiving warfarin monotherapy or warfarin and antiplatelet combination therapy. METHODS This was a retrospective, longitudinal, pharmacoepidemiologic analysis. Adult patients receiving warfarin managed by an anticoagulation service who had documented the use of antiplatelet agents (eg, aspirin, clopidogrel, and/or dipyridamole) [ie, the combination-therapy cohort] or their nonuse (ie, the monotherapy cohort) were identified as of September 30, 2005. Utilizing integrated, electronic medical records, anticoagulation-related adverse events (eg, death, hemorrhage, or thrombosis) and coronary events were identified during a 6-month follow-up period (October 2005 through March 2006). The proportions of events were compared between cohorts. Independent associations between the cohorts and the outcomes were assessed with adjustment for potential confounding factors. RESULTS Data from 2,560 patients in the monotherapy cohort and 1,623 patients in the combination-therapy cohort were analyzed. Patients in the combination-therapy cohort were more likely to have had anticoagulation-related hemorrhages (4.2% vs 2.0%, respectively; unadjusted p < 0.001) and coronary events (0.9% vs 0.3%, respectively; p = 0.009), but not death (0.1% vs 0.2%, respectively; unadjusted p = 0.186) or thrombotic events (0.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; unadjusted p = 0.812). With adjustment, combined warfarin and antiplatelet use was independently associated with hemorrhagic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44 to 5.28), but not with coronary events (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.62). CONCLUSIONS At the population level, the hemorrhagic risk associated with warfarin therapy combined with antiplatelet therapy appears to outweigh the benefits. These findings suggest that clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits when recommending combined antiplatelet therapy for patients receiving warfarin who do not meet the evidence-based criteria for such therapy.