How I Manage cyclic thrombocytopenia

Cyclic thrombocytopenia (CTP) is a rare disease, which is characterized by periodic fluctuation of the platelet count. The pathogenesis of CTP is unknown and most likely heterogeneous. Patients with CTP are almost always misdiagnosed as having primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The interval between ITP and CTP diagnosis can be many years. CTP patients often receive ITP-specific therapies including corticosteroids, thrombopoietin receptor agonists, rituximab and splenectomy which are followed by a transient increase in platelet count that is wrongly attributed to treatment effect with inevitable "relapse". CTP can be diagnosed by frequent platelet count monitoring which reveals a typical pattern of periodic platelet cycling. An early diagnosis of CTP will prevent these patients from being exposed to possibly harmful therapies. The bleeding phenotype is usually mild and consists of mucocutaneous bleeding at the time when the platelet count is at its nadir. Severe bleeding from other sites can occur but is rare. Some patients respond to cyclosporine A or to danazol, but most patients do not respond to any therapy. CTP can be associated with hematological malignancies or disorders of the thyroid gland. Nevertheless, spontaneous remissions can occur, even after many years.

SARS-COV-2 infection in a patient with Evans syndrome: A silent enemy or an ally?

During the current outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the way to manage patients with autoimmune diseases remains elusive due to limited data available. Case report: Addressing this issue we report a case of a COVID-19 positive 20-year-old female with prior history of Evans syndrome. She remained asymptomatic even though she had been treated with immunosuppressants (prednisolone and azathioprine) together with romiplostim. Moreover, her course of infection was accompanied by thrombocytosis, although her platelet count was mostly below the reference range before the infection. The patient was monitored vigilantly, with special regard to platelet count and signs of thrombotic events. Conclusion: Platelet count monitoring and romiplostim administration should be performed more cautiously in ITP patients infected by SARS-CoV-2.

Incidence of thrombocytopenia in neonates receiving phototherapy for indirect hyperbilirubinemia: a prospective cohort study

Background: Thrombocytopenia as a side effect of phototherapy has not been mentioned in the standard literature but was described briefly as isolated case reports after the phototherapy came in vogue in 1958. The purpose of this study was to find the incidence of thrombocytopenia in neonates with uncomplicated indirect hyperbilirubinemia receiving phototherapy in a referral hospital.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in a referral hospital over a period of 18 months from June 1, 2013 to November 1, 2014.Results: A total of 103 babies were enrolled. The overall incidence of post-phototherapy thrombocytopenia was 45.6% while mild, moderate and severe thrombocytopenia was present in 66%, 21.3% and 12.8% of babies respectively. The lowest platelet count observed was 31,000/mm3 but none of the neonates showed bleeding manifestations. The incidence of thrombocytopenia following phototherapy was significantly higher in preterm babies, infants who received double surface phototherapy, babies who received phototherapy for >72 hours and in babies who received phototherapy on day 2 or 3 of life.Conclusions: Neonates requiring phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia are at risk of developing thrombocytopenia, hence the treatment should be initiated based on the standard guidelines. Unnecessary use and prolongation of phototherapy should be avoided considering the possible side effects. Platelet count should be monitored particularly in pre-term neonates receiving phototherapy. Neonates receiving double surface phototherapy and those requiring phototherapy for longer duration require more frequent platelet count monitoring.

Clinical Significance of the Serotonin Release Assay and Platelet Count Monitoring After Cardiac Surgery

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is one of the serious complications in patients who undergo cardiac surgery. However, there remains a major problem in diagnosing HIT because the current immunological assays for detection of HIT antibody have limitations. Furthermore, the clinical course of thrombocytopenia in this surgery makes it increasingly difficult to diagnose HIT. We investigated the relationship between platelet count and HIT antibody in 59 patients who underwent cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The number of postoperative HIT antibody-positive patients evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (polyanion IgG/IgA/IgM complex antibodies/antiplatelet factor 4 enhanced) was 37 (62.7%). In contrast, platelet activation by HIT antibody was evaluated using the serotonin release assay (SRA). More than 20% and 50% release of serotonin was obtained from 12 patients (20.3%) and 8 patients (13.6%), respectively. The levels of d-dimer were significantly different on postoperative day 14 between SRA-positive and SRA-negative groups; however, postoperative thrombus complication was not detected using sonography in the patients with positive serotonin release at all. After being decreased by the operation, their platelet count recovered within 2 weeks in both groups equally. In our study, although the patients were positive in the platelet activating HIT antibody assay, they remained free from thrombosis and their platelet count recovered after early postoperative platelet decrease. Therefore, in addition to the SRA, monitoring of platelet count might be still considered an indispensable factor to facilitate the prediction of HIT thrombosis prior to manifestation in the patients undergoing cardiac surgery using CPB.

A Benchmark for Platelet Count Monitoring with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin: Expanding Implementation of National Patient Safety Goals

Practitioners in US hospitals are implementing anticoagulation dosing and monitoring protocols to improve the safety of anticoagulation, consistent with National Patient Safety Goal 03.05.01. An audit of the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database of patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) at the University Medical Center Utrecht revealed low compliance with platelet count monitoring as well as initial management of suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Limitations to this work included the inability to exclude other drug-induced causes of thrombocytopenia and their definition of the frequency of platelet count monitoring for compliance in patients given venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Despite these limitations, the authors’ work represents the first published report on extending the quality of heparin anticoagulation management to platelet count monitoring and evaluation for HIT in a large patient population. Clinicians should include evaluations of compliance with platelet count monitoring with unfractionated heparin and LMWH, as well as appropriateness of the initial management strategies for HIT, and direct thrombin inhibitor protocols in their patient safety practice assessments.

Compliance with Platelet Count Monitoring Recommendations and Management of Possible Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin

Background: Summaries of product characteristics (SPCs) and clinical guideline recommendations are available for monitoring the platelet count for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Testing for the presence of heparin-platelet factor 4 antibodies (HPF4-Ab) and starting alternative anticoagulation is recommended when HIT is suspected. Objective: To investigate the frequency of compliance with recommendations for platelet count monitoring and management of possible HIT in hospitalized patients receiving prophylaxis and treatment dosing of LMWH for at least 5 consecutive days. Methods: A retrospective cohort study within the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database (UPOD) was conducted. For all inpatients, all episodes of exposure to dalteparin or nadroparin for at least 5 consecutive days in 2004–2005 were selected. In 4 different nonexclusive groups of patients (all pts. receiving dalteparin, all pts. receiving nadroparin, surgical pts. with a prophylactic dose of either dalteparin or nadroparin, and pts. exposed to unfractionated heparin [UFH] within 100 days before receiving either dalteparin or nadroparin), compliance with recommendations for platelet count monitoring from SPCs and a clinical guideline was studied. The frequency of compliance with these recommendations was determined. In addition, it was determined whether patient and treatment characteristics were associated with regular platelet count monitoring. Finally, the frequency of testing for HPF4-Ab and the initiation of danaparoid treatment in patients with a drop of at least 50% in platelet count were investigated. Results: A total of 6804 patients, with 7770 episodes of LMWH treatment, were included in the analysis. The frequency of compliance with platelet count monitoring recommendations was 26.3% for all patients receiving dalteparin, 35.6% for all patients receiving nadroparin, 23.0% for surgical patients receiving prophylactic dosing of either dalteparin or nadroparin, and 41.5% for patients exposed to UFH within 100 days before the start of either dalteparin or nadroparin treatment. Regular platelet count monitoring was strongly positively associated with medical patients (relative risk [RR] 2.33), surgical patients (RR 2.03), critically ill patients (RR 2.60), and those with recent exposure to UFH (RR 2.19). The frequency of testing for HPF4-Ab was 5.4% and the initiation of alternative anticoagulation with danaparoid in patients with a 50% drop in platelet count was 0%. Conclusions: The results suggest that compliance with recommendations for platelet count monitoring and management of possible HIT is low at our institution. Policies and tools to improve compliance with recommended laboratory monitoring should be developed to secure the safe use of LMWH and other medications.

Adherence to Guidelines for Monitoring for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients Treated with Low Molecular Weight Heparin

Laboratory monitoring for early detection of adverse drug reactions is recommended for many drugs. For patients treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and clinical guidelines recommend to monitor the platelet count for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a potentially life-threatening adverse event, characterised by a typical drop in platelet count. When the platelet count drops without obvious explanation in these patients, testing for heparin-platelet factor 4 antibodies (HPF4-Ab) and initiating alternative anticoagulation are advised. In the current study adherence to recommended platelet count monitoring in clinical patients without thrombocytopenia-associated diseases treated with LMWH for at least five days at our institution, and adherence to recommended testing for HPF4-Ab and initiation of alternative anticoagulation in patients with potential HIT (defined as a drop of at least 50% in platelet count between days 5 and 14 following the start of LMWH treatment, or stopdate, whichever occurred first, compared to the highest platelet count within days 1–4) were investigated. Data from the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database (UPOD) were used for this retrospective cohort study. Inpatients exposed to the LMWHs dalteparin or nadroparin for at least five days during the period 2004–2005 were included. Patients with thrombocytopenia-related diseases were excluded. Firstly, adherence to recommended platelet count monitoring, based on recommendations from SPCs and clinical guidelines, was investigated. Secondly, the association between patient- and treatment characteristics and obtaining at least 2 platelets counts during treatment was investigated. Thirdly, adherence to recommended testing for HPF4-Ab and initiating treatment with danaparoid was investigated in patients with potential HIT. 6,804 patients with 7,770 episodes of LMWH treatment of at least five days were included. Adherence to the recommendations for platelet count monitoring from the SPC of nadroparin and dalteparin was 36.5% and 26.3% respectively. Adherence to the different platelet count monitoring recommendations from the 2002 clinical guideline on HIT was 23.0% and 41.5%. Obtaining at least 2 platelet counts during treatment was found to be strongly associated with ICU admission, previous UFH exposure, and a treatment duration of at least 10 days. There were 98 patients with potential HIT. Adherence to testing for HPF4-Ab in patients with potential HIT was 6.1%. Adherence to starting alternative anticoagulation in patients with potential HIT treatment was 0%. The results of this study suggest that adherence to recommendations for monitoring for HIT with LMWH is low at our institution. The results of this study justify to say that there is a need to think of appropriate actions for improving the awareness of HIT as an adverse reaction to LMWH, and to secure the safe use of LMWH.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)

SummaryClinical outcomes of 1,478 danaparoid treatment case reports for HIT (involving 1,418 patients) treated between 1982 and mid-2004 are analysed. Treatment in 1,291 episodes was for current HIT. Thromboembolism due to HIT was present in 39.4a%. The patients include 33 children and 32 pregnancies. Two hundred twenty-six patients required extra-corporeal circuit use for renal failure, 241 patients had a concomitant thrombophilic disorder, and 351 major operations were performed. Clinical outcomes were assessed during danaparoid treatment (range one day to 3.5 years) plus three months of follow-up. Of the danaparoid-treated patients 83.8a% survived; 63.7a% had no or minor adverse events and 20.1a% suffered serious non-fatal adverse events. New thromboses occurred during 9.7a% of treatment episodes, and 16.4a% of treatment episodes had an inadequate treatment response (i. e. developed one or more of the following: new/extended thrombosis, persistent/new platelet count reduction, unplanned amputation during treatment and follow-up). Major bleeding was reported in 8.1a% of treatment episodes. Clinical cross-reactivity of danaparoid (new/persistent platelet count reduction and/or new/extended thrombosis) was confirmed serologically in 23 of 36 patients with positive pretreatment serological danaparoid cross-reactivity and in 22 of 32 additional patients tested at the time of the new event, i. e. a total of 45 patients (3.2a%). Clinical outcomes of these case reports of patients given danaparoid because of suspected or confirmed HIT appear to be comparable with those reported by others who used direct thrombin inhibitors, especially when a sufficient danaparoid dosing intensity was used in patients with isolated HIT. Post-operative bleeding limits danaparoid use for cardiopulmonary by-pass surgery. Routine clinical and platelet count monitoring are required to minimise adverse reactions due to cross-reactivity.