Safety of intermediate dose of low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mattioli M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7426007 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Safety of intermediate dose of low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19 patients.
Mattioli Massimo M Benfaremo Devis D Mancini Mauro M Mucci Luciano L Mainquà Paola P Polenta Antonio A Baldini Patrizia Maria PM Fulgenzi Francesca F Dennetta Donatella D Bedetta Samuele S Gasperoni Lorenzo L Caraffa Alessandro A Frausini Gabriele G
Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis 20210201 2
Coagulopathy represents one of the most important determinants of morbidity and mortality in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Whether standard thromboprophylaxis is sufficient or higher doses are needed, especially in severe patients, is unknown. To evaluate the safety of intermediate dose regimens of low-weight molecular heparin (LWMH) in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia, particularly in older patients. We retrospectively evaluated 105 hospitalized patients (61 M, 44 F; mean age 73.7 years) t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:COVID-19 patients present with delirium during their hospitalization. AIMS:To assess the incidence of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and analyze the possible association with demographic, clinical, laboratory, and pharmacological factors. METHODS:COVID-19 patients were assessed for clinical signs of delirium and administered the assessment test for delirium and cognitive impairment (4AT) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) scales. RESULTS:Out of the 56 patients of our cohort, 14 (25.0%) experienced delirium. The use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg/daily) was less frequent in patients with delirium (p = 0.004) and was accompanied by lower C reactive protein (CRP) levels (p = 0.006). DISCUSSION:The use of LMWH was associated with absence of delirium, independently of comorbidities and age. CONCLUSIONS:The use of LMWH may help preventing the occurrence of delirium in COVID-19 patients, with possible reduction of length of stay in the hospital and sequelae.
| S-EPMC7664586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted an observational cohort study in adult patients consecutively admitted for the respiratory illness Covid-19 to our hub hospital from March 9 to April 7, 2020. The high observed rate of venous thromboembolism prompted us to increase the prophylactic doses of enoxaparin from 40 mg daily up to 1 mg/kg twice daily in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), 0.7 mg/kg twice daily in high-intensity of care wards and 1 mg/kg daily in low-intensity of care wards. Patients on high enoxaparin doses were compared to those who received prophylaxis with the standard dosage. Efficacy endpoints were mortality, clinical deterioration, and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleeding. Of 278 patients with Covid-19, 127 received prophylaxis with high enoxaparin doses and 151 with standard dosage. At 21 days, the incidence rate of death and clinical deterioration were lower in patients on higher doses than in those on the standard dosage (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62), and the incidence of venous thromboembolism was also lower (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.05). Major bleeding occurred in four of 127 patients (3.1%) on the high enoxaparin dosage. In conclusion, in the cohort of patients with Covid-19 treated with high enoxaparin dosages we observed a 60% reduction of mortality and clinical deterioration and a 50% reduction of venous thromboembolism compared to standard dosage prophylaxis. However, 3% of patients on high enoxaparin dosages had non-fatal major bleeding.
| S-EPMC7778858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate potential markers of coagulopathy and the effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on thromboelastography (TEG) and anti-factor Xa in critically ill COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsWe conducted a prospective study in 31 consecutive adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. TEG with and without heparinase and anti-factor Xa analysis were performed. Standard thromboprophylaxis was given with dalteparin (75-100 IU/kg subcutaneously).ResultsFive patients (16%) had symptomatic thromboembolic events. All patients had a maximum amplitude (MA) > 65 mm and 13 (42%) had MA > 72 mm at some point during ICU stay. Anti-factor Xa activity were below the target range in 23% of the patients and above target range in 46% of patients. There was no significant correlation between dalteparin dose and anti-factor Xa activity.ConclusionsPatients with COVID-19 have hypercoagulability with high MA on TEG. The effect of LMWH on thromboembolic disease, anti-factor Xa activity and TEG was variable and could not be reliably predicted. This indicates that standard prophylactic doses of LMWH may be insufficient. Monitoring coagulation and the LMWH effect is important in patients with COVID-19 but interpreting the results in relation to risk of thromboembolic disease poses difficulties.
| S-EPMC7470731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism is a major complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We hypothesized that a weight-adjusted intermediate dose of anticoagulation may decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomised, open-label, phase 4, superiority trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes, we randomly assigned adult patients hospitalised in 20 French centers and presenting with acute respiratory SARS-CoV-2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive an intermediate weight-adjusted prophylactic dose or a fixed-dose of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin during the hospital stay. The primary outcome corresponded to symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (fatal) pulmonary embolism during hospitalization (COVI-DOSE ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04373707).FindingsBetween May 2020, and April 2021, 1000 patients underwent randomisation in medical wards (noncritically ill) (80.1%) and intensive care units (critically ill) (19.9%); 502 patients were assigned to receive a weight-adjusted intermediate dose, and 498 received fixed-dose thromboprophylaxis. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 6 of 502 patients (1.2%) in the weight-adjusted dose group and in 10 of 498 patients (2.1%) in the fixed-dose group (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.22-1.63; P = 0.31). There was a twofold increased risk of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding: 5.9% in the weight-adjusted dose group and 3.1% in the fixed-dose group (P = 0.034).InterpretationIn the COVI-DOSE trial, the observed rate of thromboembolic events was lower than expected in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, and the study was unable to show a significant difference in the risk of venous thromboembolism between the two low-molecular-weight-heparin regimens.FundingFrench Ministry of Health, CAPNET, Grand-Est Region, Grand-Nancy Métropole.
| S-EPMC10250778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A pro-thrombotic milieu and a higher risk of thrombotic events were observed in patients with CoronaVirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Accordingly, recent data suggested a beneficial role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but the optimal dosage of this treatment is unknown. We evaluated the association between prophylactic vs. intermediate-to-fully anticoagulant doses of enoxaparin and in-hospital adverse events in patients with COVID-19. We retrospectively included 436 consecutive patients admitted in three Italian hospitals. Outcome according to the use of prophylactic (4000 IU) vs. higher (> 4000 IU) daily dosage of enoxaparin was evaluated. The primary end-point was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital cardiovascular death, venous thromboembolism, new-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation. A total of 287 patients (65.8%) were treated with the prophylactic enoxaparin regimen and 149 (34.2%) with a higher dosing regimen. The use of prophylactic enoxaparin dose was associated with a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (25.4% vs. 26.9% with the higher dose; OR at multivariable analysis, including the propensity score: 0.847, 95% CI 0.400-0.1.792; p = 0.664). In the prophylactic dose group, a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death (OR 0.165), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.067), new-onset ARDS (OR 0.454) and mechanical intubation (OR 0.150) was observed. In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a prophylactic dosage of enoxaparin appears to be associated with similar in-hospital overall mortality compared to higher doses. These findings require confirmation in a randomized, controlled study.
| S-EPMC7919624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Methods and resultsWe systematically searched several databases and included observational studies or clinical trials that compared the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of nine studies comprising 9637 patients were included. Metanalysis showed that LMWH administration was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality and 28/30-day mortality compared with UFH administration {[relative risk (RR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32-0.61; I2: 87.9%] and (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; I2: 78.4%), respectively}. Patient with LMWH had shorter duration of hospital and ICU length of stay compared with UFH {[weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.20; 95% CI -3.01 to -1.40; I2:0%] and (WMD -1.41; 95% CI -2.20 to -0.63; I2: 0%), respectively}. The risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation was lower in patients who received LMWH than in those who received UFH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.81; I2: 67.3%). However, there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-1.01; I2: 64.6%).ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed that administration of LMWH was associated with better outcomes compared with UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective cohorts and RCTs are urgently needed to explore the definitive effect of LMWH to provide direct high-certainty evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021271977.
| S-EPMC9384651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased thrombosis prevalence. However, there are insufficient data supporting the appropriate anticoagulation dose in COVID-19.ObjectiveWe aim to systematically assess the currently available data regarding the effects of different dosing regimens of low molecular weight heparin and/or fondaparinux (LMWH/F) on mortality risk as well as the risk of arterial/venous thrombotic events and hemorrhagic complications in confirmed COVID-19 cases.DesignWe conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of different LMWH/F doses on mortality, thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in COVID-19 patients.Data sources and methodsMEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to detect observational cohort studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing difference doses of LMWH/F among confirmed COVID-19 cases.ResultsThirty-one eligible studies (6 RCTs and 25 cohort studies) with 11,430 hospitalized patients were included. No association was found between LMWH/F and mortality during the following comparisons: (1) no LMWH/F versus any LMWH/F; (2) prophylactic versus higher than prophylactic LMWH/F; (3) prophylactic versus therapeutic LMWH/F; (4) intermediate versus therapeutic LMWH/F; and (5) lower than therapeutic versus therapeutic LMWH/F. Mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic versus intermediate LMWH/F (OR = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.19-3.39). However, this effect was mostly driven by observational data. No associations were detected between the intensity of LMWH/F and the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, except the lower risk for hemorrhage in patients on prophylactic compared to higher LMWH/F doses.ConclusionThe risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic LMWH/F compared to those on an intermediate dose of LMWH/F, based on observational data. These results should be interpreted in light of the moderate quality and heterogeneity of the included studies.RegistrationThe study protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021229771).
| S-EPMC9136435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThe HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US.InterventionsPatients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data.ResultsOf 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.
| S-EPMC8498934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate safety and effectiveness of prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in individuals hospitalised for COVID-19.MethodsUsing healthcare records from the Capital Region of Denmark (March 2020-February 2021) and Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden (February 2020-September 2021), we conducted an observational cohort study comparing clinical outcomes 30 days after admission among individuals hospitalised for COVID-19 starting prophylactic LMWH during the first 48 hours of hospitalisation with outcomes among those not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. We used inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders and bias due to missing information. Risk ratios, risk differences and robust 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using binomial regression. Country-specific risk ratios were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 1692 and 1868 individuals in the Danish and Swedish cohorts. Of these, 771 (46%) and 1167 (62%) received prophylactic LMWH up to 48 hours after admission. The combined mortality in Denmark and Sweden was 12% (N = 432) and the pooled risk ratio was 0.91 (CI 0.60-1.38) comparing individuals who received LMWH to those who did not. The relative risk of ICU admission was 1.12 (0.76-1.66), while we observed no increased risk of bleeding 0.63 (0.13-2.94). The relative risk of venous thromboembolism was 0.80 (0.43-1.47).ConclusionWe found no benefit on mortality with prophylactic LMWH and no increased risk of bleeding among COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic LMWH.
| S-EPMC8926439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation.MethodsWe used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables.ResultsSeventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51).ConclusionsLMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC5463373 | biostudies-literature