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.

Background: COVID-19 related acute 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 decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 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 (through November 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. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. Results: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. Conclusions: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

Background: COVID-19 related acute 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 decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including three 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. Results: The panel agreed on one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 being discharged from the hospital who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation. Conclusions: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials assessing the role of post-discharge 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 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, including three 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 5, 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. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021. Results: The panel agreed on one 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, underscoring the need for further high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence on predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of non-anticoagulant therapies (e.g., antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk.

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 decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including three 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 January 2022). 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. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. Results: The panel made one additional recommendation, a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. Conclusions: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

Objectives A previous survey of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic documented less than 20% experienced high levels of burnout. This study examined the experience of a similar group of physicians during the second pandemic wave. We reported the associations between burnout and physician age, gender, having children at home and training route. Methods This study utilized a national survey of Canadian emergency physicians. We collected data on demographics and measured burnout using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Multiple logistic regression models identified associations between the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization domains of the MBI and EM physician demographics (age, gender, children living at home, and training route). Results Between November 25, 2020, and February 4, 2021, 416 emergency physicians completed the survey, representing all Provinces or Territories in Canada (except Nunavut). The mean participant age was 44, 53% were male, 64% had children living at home and 41% were FRCPC and 41% CCFP-EM trained. Sixty percent reported high burnout (either high emotional exhaustion and/or high depersonalization). Increasing age was associated with lower emotional exhaustion and depersonalization; female or nonbinary gender was associated with an increase in emotional exhaustion; and having children living at home was associated with lower depersonalization. Conclusions Most Canadian emergency physicians participating in our study during the COVID-19 pandemic reported high burnout levels. Younger physicians and female physicians were more likely than their coworkers to report high burnout levels. Hospitals should address emergency physician burnout during the pandemic because it is a threat to quality of patient care and retention of the workforce for the future. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43678-021-00259-9.

The field of data science has great potential to address critical questions relevant for academic medical centers. Data science initiatives are consequently being established within academic medicine. At the cornerstone of such initiatives are scientists who practice data science. These scientists include biostatisticians, clinical informaticians, database and software developers, computational scientists, and computational biologists. Too often, however, those involved in the practice of data science are viewed by academic leadership as providing a noncomplex service to facilitate research and further the careers of other academic faculty. The authors contend that the success of data science initiatives relies heavily on the understanding that the practice of data science is a critical intellectual contribution to the overall science conducted at an academic medical center. Further, careful thought by academic leadership is needed for allocation of resources devoted to the practice of data science. At the Stanford University School of Medicine, the authors have developed an innovative model for a data science collaboratory based on 4 fundamental elements: an emphasis on collaboration over consultation, a subscription-based funding mechanism that reflects commitment by key partners, an investment in the career development of faculty who practice data science, and a strong educational component for data science members in team science and for clinical and translational investigators in data science. As data science becomes increasingly essential to learning health systems, centers that specialize in the practice of data science are a critical component of the research infrastructure and intellectual environment of academic medical centers.

No abstract