Impact of anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tremblay D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7332896 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Impact of anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Tremblay Douglas D van Gerwen Maaike M Alsen Mathilda M Thibaud Santiago S Kessler Alaina A Venugopal Sangeetha S Makki Iman I Qin Qian Q Dharmapuri Sirish S Jun Tomi T Bhalla Sheena S Berwick Shana S Feld Jonathan J Mascarenhas John J Troy Kevin K Cromwell Caroline C Dunn Andrew A Oh William K WK Naymagon Leonard L
Blood 20200701 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:The hypercoagulable state observed in COVID-19 could be responsible for morbidity and mortality. In this retrospective study we investigated whether therapeutic anticoagulation prior to infection has a beneficial effect in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study included 1154 COVID-19 patients admitted to 6 hospitals in the Netherlands between March and May 2020. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching to evaluate the association between prior therapeutic anticoagulation use and clinical outcome, with in hospital mortality as primary endpoint. In total, 190 (16%) patients used therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission. In the propensity score matched analyses, we observed no associations between prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation and overall mortality (risk ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval; 0.80-1.30]) or length of hospital stay (7.0 [4-12] vs. 7.0 [4-12] days, P = .69), although we observed a lower risk of pulmonary embolism (0.19 [0.05-0.80]). This study shows that prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation is not associated with improved clinical outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8250934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE COVID-19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity-score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score-matched population, cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID-19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42-0.92], P=0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.
| S-EPMC9333361 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11544652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in-hospital mortality with intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death.
| S-EPMC8013588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. How does in-hospital mortality compare with intermediate-versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin versus no antiplatelet therapy, in treatment of COVID-19? Using data from 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (1) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (2) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). Propensity score matching utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates yielded treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate-compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. No conflict of interest exists for any author on this manuscript.
| S-EPMC7814841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo explore the impact of inactivated COVID-19 vaccination on ovarian reserve as assessed by serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration.MethodsA total of 3160 women were included in this single-center retrospective cohort study between June 2021 and October 2022. Vaccination information were collected from official immunization records available in personal mobile apps. Serum AMH was qualified by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and compared with previous measurement data within three years. Women were categorized to the vaccinated group if they received two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (Sinopharm or Sinovac) between AMH tests (n = 488), and to the control group if not vaccinated (n = 2672). Propensity score matching and multivariate linear regression were performed to control for potential confounders. The main outcome measures were the numeric AMH change and percentage AMH change between the two tests.ResultsThere were 474 women left in each group after matching all baseline characteristics. The mean interval from the first to second AMH measurement was 508.0 ± 250.2 and 507.5 ± 253.6 days for vaccinated and unvaccinated women, respectively (P = 0.680). Both groups had a significant AMH decrease in the second test compared with the first test (P = 0.001). However, the second AMH level remained comparable between groups (3.26 ± 2.80 vs. 3.24 ± 2.61 ng/mL, P = 0.757). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in numerical (-0.14 ± 1.32 vs. -0.20 ± 1.56 ng/mL, P = 0.945) and percentage (2.33 ± 58.65 vs. 0.35 ± 48.42%, P = 0.777) AMH changes. The results were consistent in sub-analyses for women aged <35 and ≥35 years. There were also no significant differences when vaccinated women were divided according to the time interval after vaccination: ≤30, 31-60, 61-90, and ≥91 days.ConclusionOur study provides the first evidence that inactivated COVID-19 vaccination has no measurable detrimental effect on ovarian reserve, regardless of female age and vaccination interval. This reassuring finding adds to the safety evidence of COVID-19 vaccine in fertility, and should be useful to promote vaccine acceptance. Multicenter prospective cohort studies are needed to validate our conclusion.
| S-EPMC10451080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of prior fragility fractures and osteoporosis treatment before total hip arthroplasty (THA) on postoperative complications is unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect of prior fragility fractures and preoperative osteoporosis treatment on short-term complications and secondary fragility fractures after THA.MethodsA propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study was conducted using a commercially available database to (1) characterize the impact of prior fragility fractures on rates of short-term complications after THA and (2) evaluate if osteoporosis treatment before arthroplasty reduces risk of postoperative complications. Rates of periprosthetic fracture, revision THA, and fragility fractures were compared via multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAfter 1:1 propensity score matching, 2188 patients were assigned to each cohort. Patients with a fragility fracture in the 3 years preceding THA were more likely to sustain a periprosthetic fracture (1 year: 1.7% vs 1.0%, odds ratio [OR] 1.89; 2 years: 2.1% vs 1.1%, OR 1.82), fragility fracture (1 year: 4.7% vs 1.1%, OR 3.59; 2 years: 6.7% vs 1.7%, OR 3.21), and revision THA (1 year: 2.7% vs 1.7%, OR 1.65; 2 years: 3.1% vs 1.9%, OR 1.58). Among patients with a prior fragility fracture, only 13.8% received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy before THA. Rates of all complications were statistically comparable postoperatively for patients with and without pre-THA osteoporosis treatment.ConclusionsFragility fractures within 3 years before THA are associated with significantly increased risk of periprosthetic fracture, all-cause revision, and secondary fragility fractures postoperatively. Preoperative osteoporosis treatment may not decrease risk of postoperative complications.
| S-EPMC8379644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 5 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts.ResultsThe analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016).ConclusionEmpiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.
| S-EPMC8087886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, and all COVID-19 patients were recruited who were admitted to the Yichang Third People's Hospital from February 1st to March 31st, 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used for minimizing confounding effects. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, with the secondary outcomes being the time needed for a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test to turn negative and the length of hospital stay.ResultsTotaling 367 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the Yichang Third People's Hospital were identified, of whom 276 were mild or stable COVID-19, and 67 were serious or critically ill. Among them, 255 patients were treated using methylprednisolone, and 188 did not receive any corticosteroid-related treatment. After PSM, no statistically significant difference was found in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Regarding the outcomes, there also were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Patients without the use of methylprednisolone were more quickly to obtain negative results of their nasopharyngeal swab tests of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid after treatment, compared to those receiving methylprednisolone.ConclusionMethylprednisolone could not improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, and the efficacy and safety of the use of methylprednisolone in patients with COVID-19 still remain uncertain, thus the use of corticosteroids clinically in patients with COVID-19 should be with cautions.
| S-EPMC7775059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a traditional Chinese medicine, Lianhua Qingwen capsules have been widely used to treat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was aimed to demonstrate the association between treatment with Lianhua Qingwen capsules and the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This retrospective study was conducted at four hospitals in Central China. Data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients were collected between December 19, 2019 and April 26, 2020. Based on whether Lianhua Qingwen capsules were used, patients were classified into Lianhua Qingwen and non-Lianhua Qingwen (control) groups. To control for confounding factors, we used conditional logistic regression in a propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort (1 : 1 balanced), as well as logistic regression without matching as sensitivity analysis. A total of 4918 patients were included, 2760 of whom received Lianhua Qingwen capsules and 2158 of whom did not. In the PSM model, after adjusting for confounders, the in-hospital mortality was similar between the Lianhua Qingwen group and the control group (6.8% vs. 3.3%, adjusted OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.38-1.15], p = 0.138). The negative conversion rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was higher in the Lianhua Qingwen group (88.3% vs. 96.1%, adjusted OR, 4.02 [95% CI, 2.58-6.25], p < 0.001). The incidence of acute liver injury was comparable between the two groups (14.0% vs. 11.5%, adjusted OR: 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.02], p = 0.083), and the incidence of acute kidney injury was lower in the Lianhua Qingwen group (5.3% vs. 3.0%, adjusted OR: 0.71 [95% CI, 0.50-1.00], p = 0.048). Treatment with Lianhua Qingwen capsules was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. In the Lianhua Qingwen group, the negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher and the incidence of acute kidney injury was lower than in the control group.
| S-EPMC9957644 | biostudies-literature