No abstract

Platelet factor 4 (PF4), also known as chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 4 (CXCL4), is a specific protein synthesized from platelet α particles. The combination of PF4 and heparin to form antigenic complexes is an important mechanism in the pathogenesis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), but vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) related to the COVID-19 vaccine makes PF4 a research hotspot again. Similar to HIT, vaccines, bacteria, and other non-heparin exposure, PF4 can interact with negatively charged polyanions to form immune complexes and participate in thrombosis. These anions include cell surface mucopolysaccharides, platelet polyphosphates, DNA from endothelial cells, or von Willebrand factor (VWF). Among them, PF4–VWF, as a new immune complex, may induce and promote the formation of immune-associated thrombosis and is expected to become a new target and therapeutic direction. For both HIT and VITT, there is no effective and targeted treatment except discontinuation of suspected drugs. The research and development of targeted drugs based on the mechanism of action have become an unmet clinical need. Here, this study systematically reviewed the characteristics and pathophysiological mechanisms of PF4 and VWF, elaborated the potential mechanism of action of PF4–VWF complex in immune-associated thrombosis, summarized the current status of new drug research and development for PF4 and VWF, and discussed the possibility of this complex as a potential biomarker for early immune-associated thrombosis events. Moreover, the key points of basic research and clinical evaluation are put forward in the study.

Background The real-world studies on recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in VTE patients have reported conflicting findings. Our study aimed to provide the direct comparison evidence of different NOACs for VTE patients in clinical practice settings. Methods Search of the medical literature was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 22, 2021. Among the 19,996 citations retrieved, a total of 63,144 patients from 6 studies were analyzed. Clinical outcomes included recurrent VTE, death, and different bleeding events. Results Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) analysis suggested that apixaban had significant lower bleeding riskthan rivaroxaban (major, minor and any bleeding: HR = 0.61, 0.56, 0.70; p = 0.008, < 0.0001, 0.006, respectively), but no statistics difference found in recurrent VTE events (HR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.47, p = 0.93). There was no significant difference of major bleeding between dabigatran and rivaroxaban (odds ratios (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09–1.90, p = 0.25), apixaban and dabigatran (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15–2.72, p = 0.83). No significant difference was found in the comparison of edoxaban and other NOACs in VTE recurrence, major bleeding and composite outcome. Conclusions In the prevention of bleeding events, apixaban was associated with a lower risk than rivaroxaban, but equivalent efficacy for different NOACs in prevention of recurrent VTE. Evidence generated from the meta-analysis based on real-world data can help to guide selection between apixaban and rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice. Trial registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statements and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140553).