Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) can lead to systemic coagulation activation and thrombotic complications. We investigated the incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 198 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 in a single‐center cohort study. Seventy‐five patients (38%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). At time of data collection, 16 (8%) were still hospitalized and 19% had died. During a median follow‐up of 7 days (IQR, 3‐13), 39 patients (20%) were diagnosed with VTE of whom 25 (13%) had symptomatic VTE, despite routine thrombosis prophylaxis. The cumulative incidences of VTE at 7, 14 and 21 days were 16% (95% CI, 10‐22), 33% (95% CI, 23‐43) and 42% (95% CI 30‐54) respectively. For symptomatic VTE, these were 10% (95% CI, 5.8‐16), 21% (95% CI, 14‐30) and 25% (95% CI 16‐36). VTE appeared to be associated with death (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.02‐5.5). The cumulative incidence of VTE was higher in the ICU (26% (95% CI, 17‐37), 47% (95% CI, 34‐58), and 59% (95% CI, 42‐72) at 7, 14 and 21 days) than on the wards (any VTE and symptomatic VTE 5.8% (95% CI, 1.4‐15), 9.2% (95% CI, 2.6‐21), and 9.2% (2.6‐21) at 7, 14, and 21 days). The observed risk for VTE in COVID‐19 is high, particularly in ICU patients, which should lead to a high level of clinical suspicion and low threshold for diagnostic imaging for DVT or PE. Future research should focus on optimal diagnostic and prophylactic strategies to prevent VTE and potentially improve survival.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the updates for the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature from 2017 to 2022?SUMMARY ANSWER: The guideline development group (GDG) updated 11 existing recommendations on investigations and treatments for RPL, and how care should be organized, and added one new recommendation on adenomyosis investigation in women with RPL.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A previous ESHRE guideline on RPL was published in 2017 and needs to be updated.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed and updated according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. The literature searches were updated, and assessments of relevant new evidence were performed. Relevant papers published between 31 March 2017 and 28 February 2022 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate, and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were updated and discussed until consensus was reached within the GDG. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The new version of the guideline provides 39 recommendations on risk factors, prevention, and investigation in couples with RPL, and 38 recommendations on treatments. These includes 62 evidence-based recommendations—of which 33 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional—and 15 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 12 (19.4%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (34 recommendations; 54.8%), or very low-quality evidence (16 recommendations; 25.8%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions those investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guidelines have been updated; however, several investigations and treatments currently offered to couples with RPL have not been well studied; for most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against using the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best and most recent evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. Still, the absence of a unified definition of RPL is one of the most critical consequences of the limited scientific evidence in the field.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment.O.B.C. reports being a member of the executive board of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology and has received payment for honoraria for giving lectures about RPL in Australia in 2020. M.G. reports unconditional research and educational grant received by the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. S.L. reports position funding from EXAMENLAB Ltd. and ownership interest by stock or partnership of EXAMENLAB Ltd (CEO). S.Q. reports being a deputy director of Tommy’s National centre for miscarriage research, with payment received by the institution for research, staff time, and consumables for research. H.S.N. reports grants with payment to institution from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, the Danish ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond, and Independent Research Fund Denmark and speakers’ fees for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, IBSA Nordic and Cook Medical. She also reports to be an unpaid founder and chairman of a maternity foundation. M.-L.v.d.H. received small honoraria for lectures on RPL care. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

Background: Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. Conclusions: The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia.

Patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage who are receiving factor Xa inhibitors have a risk of hematoma expansion. The effect of andexanet alfa, an agent that reverses the effects of factor Xa inhibitors, on hematoma volume expansion has not been well studied. We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had taken factor Xa inhibitors within 15 hours before having an acute intracerebral hemorrhage to receive andexanet or usual care. The primary end point was hemostatic efficacy, defined by expansion of the hematoma volume by 35% or less at 12 hours after baseline, an increase in the score on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale of less than 7 points (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse neurologic deficit) at 12 hours, and no receipt of rescue therapy between 3 hours and 12 hours. Safety end points were thrombotic events and death. A total of 263 patients were assigned to receive andexanet, and 267 to receive usual care. Efficacy was assessed in an interim analysis that included 452 patients, and safety was analyzed in all 530 enrolled patients. Atrial fibrillation was the most common indication for factor Xa inhibitors. Of the patients receiving usual care, 85.5% received prothrombin complex concentrate. Hemostatic efficacy was achieved in 150 of 224 patients (67.0%) receiving andexanet and in 121 of 228 (53.1%) receiving usual care (adjusted difference, 13.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6 to 22.2; P = 0.003). The median reduction from baseline to the 1-to-2-hour nadir in anti-factor Xa activity was 94.5% with andexanet and 26.9% with usual care (P<0.001). Thrombotic events occurred in 27 of 263 patients (10.3%) receiving andexanet and in 15 of 267 (5.6%) receiving usual care (difference, 4.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 9.2; P = 0.048); ischemic stroke occurred in 17 patients (6.5%) and 4 patients (1.5%), respectively. There were no appreciable differences between the groups in the score on the modified Rankin scale or in death within 30 days. Among patients with intracerebral hemorrhage who were receiving factor Xa inhibitors, andexanet resulted in better control of hematoma expansion than usual care but was associated with thrombotic events, including ischemic stroke. (Funded by Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease and others; ANNEXA-I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03661528.).

Background: Andexanet alfa is a modified recombinant inactive factor Xa (FXa) designed to reverse FXa inhibitors. ANNEXA-4 (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors) was a multicenter, prospective, phase-3b/4, single-group cohort study that evaluated andexanet alfa in patients with acute major bleeding. The results of the final analyses are presented. Methods: Patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours of FXa inhibitor administration were enrolled. Co-primary end points were anti-FXa activity change from baseline during andexanet alfa treatment and excellent or good hemostatic efficacy, defined by a scale used in previous reversal studies, at 12 hours. The efficacy population included patients with baseline anti-FXa activity levels above predefined thresholds (≥75 ng/mL for apixaban and rivaroxaban, ≥40 ng/mL for edoxaban, and ≥0.25 IU/mL for enoxaparin; reported in the same units used for calibrators) who were adjudicated as meeting major bleeding criteria (modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition). The safety population included all patients. Major bleeding criteria, hemostatic efficacy, thrombotic events (stratified by occurring before or after restart of either prophylactic [ie, a lower dose, for prevention rather than treatment] or full-dose oral anticoagulation), and deaths were assessed by an independent adjudication committee. Median endogenous thrombin potential at baseline and across the follow-up period was a secondary outcome. Results: There were 479 patients enrolled (mean age, 78 years; 54% male; 86% White); 81% were anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation, and the median time was 11.4 hours since last dose, with 245 (51%) on apixaban, 176 (37%) on rivaroxaban, 36 (8%) on edoxaban, and 22 (5%) on enoxaparin. Bleeding was predominantly intracranial (n=331 [69%]) or gastrointestinal (n=109 [23%]). In evaluable apixaban patients (n=172), median anti-FXa activity decreased from 146.9 ng/mL to 10.0 ng/mL (reduction, 93% [95% CI, 94–93]); in rivaroxaban patients (n=132), it decreased from 214.6 ng/mL to 10.8 ng/mL (94% [95% CI, 95–93]); in edoxaban patients (n=28), it decreased from 121.1 ng/mL to 24.4 ng/mL (71% [95% CI, 82–65); and in enoxaparin patients (n=17), it decreased from 0.48 IU/mL to 0.11 IU/mL (75% [95% CI, 79–67]). Excellent or good hemostasis occurred in 274 of 342 evaluable patients (80% [95% CI, 75–84]). In the safety population, thrombotic events occurred in 50 (10%) patients; in 16 patients, these occurred during treatment with prophylactic anticoagulation that began after the bleeding event. No thrombotic episodes occurred after oral anticoagulation restart. Specific to certain populations, reduction of anti-FXa activity from baseline to nadir significantly predicted hemostatic efficacy in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.54–0.70]) and correlated with lower mortality in patients <75 years of age (adjusted P =0.022; unadjusted P =0.003). Median endogenous thrombin potential was within the normal range by the end of andexanet alfa bolus through 24 hours for all FXa inhibitors. Conclusions: In patients with major bleeding associated with the use of FXa inhibitors, treatment with andexanet alfa reduced anti-FXa activity and was associated with good or excellent hemostatic efficacy in 80% of patients. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02329327.