Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (the OVID study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barco S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7479300 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.MethodsOVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed.FindingsAt the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group.InterpretationThese findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates.FundingSNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.
| S-EPMC9243568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients presenting with the coronavirus-2019 disease (COVID-19) may have a high risk of cardiovascular adverse events, including death from cardiovascular causes. The long-term cardiovascular outcomes of these patients are entirely unknown. We aim to perform a registry of patients who have undergone a diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 and to determine their long-term cardiovascular outcomes.Study and designThis is a multicenter, observational, retrospective registry to be conducted at 17 centers in Spain and Italy (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04359927). Consecutive patients older than 18 years, who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 in the participating institutions, will be included since March 2020, to August 2020. Patients will be classified into two groups, according to the results of the RT-PCR: COVID-19 positive or negative. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality at 1 year. The secondary outcomes will be acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, pulmonary embolism, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, at 1 year. Outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Events will be adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee.ConclusionThe results of this registry will contribute to a better understanding of the long-term cardiovascular implications of the COVID19.
| S-EPMC8320971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a frequent complication in ambulatory cancer patients. Despite the high risk, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended because of the high number needed to treat and the risk of bleeding. Two recent trials demonstrated that the number needed to treat can be reduced by selecting cancer patients at high risk for VTE with prediction scores, leading the latest guidelines to suggest such an approach in clinical practice. Yet, the interpretation of these trial results and the translation of the guideline recommendations to clinical practice may be less straightforward. In this clinically-oriented review, some of the controversies are addressed by focusing on the burden of VTE in cancer patients, discussing the performance of available risk assessment scores, and summarizing the findings of recent trials. This overview can help oncologists, hematologists, and vascular medicine specialists decide about thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.
| S-EPMC7072463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To compare Anti-Xa directed thromboprophylaxis using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (anti-Xa peak goal 0.2-0.5 IU/mL) to alternative anticoagulation strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, single health-system study. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and clinically important bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included dosing comparisons between LMWH cohorts. Main Results: A total of 695 patients were included. No differences were found in the incidence of thrombotic events with any of the dosing strategies. The incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the standard dose thromboprophylaxis, intermediate dose subcutaneous heparin (SQH), and therapeutic anticoagulation cohorts. Forty-nine percent of patients within the anti-Xa directed group had their first anti-Xa peak at goal, while 43% were above goal. Patients who had levels above goal had dose modifications made, therefore anti-Xa directed LMWH resulted in significantly lower total daily doses compared to intermediate dose LMWH. Conclusions: Anti-Xa directed LMWH dosing provided comparable thromboprophylaxis with lower total daily doses of LMWH in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC9358597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEfficacy of conventional treatment plus the complementary therapy Liu-zi-jue (a mind-body exercise) to treat patients with mild COVID-19.Trial designThe study is a single-center 2 arm, randomized controlled trial with parallel-group design.
| S-EPMC7245505 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7273378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEnoxaparin 30 mg twice daily and dalteparin 5,000 units once daily are two common low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis regimens used in the trauma population. Pharmacodynamic studies suggest that enoxaparin provides more potent anticoagulation than does dalteparin.MethodsIn 2009, our institution switched its formulary LMWH from enoxaparin to dalteparin followed by a switch back to enoxaparin in 2013. Using a difference in differences design, we contrasted the change in the VTE rate accompanying the LMWH switch with the change in a control group of trauma patients given unfractionated heparin (UFH) during the same period.ResultsThe study included 5,880 patients: enoxaparin period (enoxaparin, n = 2,371; UFH, n = 1,539) vs the dalteparin period (dalteparin, n = 1,046; UFH, n = 924). The VTE rate was unchanged in the LMWH group: 3.3/1000 days in the enoxaparin period vs 3.8/1000 days in the dalteparin period: rate ratio (RR), 1.16; 95% CI 0.74-1.81. The rate was also unchanged in the UFH control subjects: 5.7/1,000 days in the enoxaparin period vs 5.2/1,000 days in the dalteparin period: RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38. After confounding adjustment, the ratio of the change in VTE rate between the LMWH and UFH groups was similar: RR, 1.06; 95% CI 0.71-2.00. A secondary analysis excluding patients with delayed or interrupted prophylaxis (or both) altered this estimate nonsignificantly in favor of enoxaparin: RR, 2.39; 95% CI, 0.80-7.09.ConclusionsOur results suggest that dalteparin has an effectiveness similar to that of enoxaparin in real-world trauma patients. Future research should investigate how the timing and consistency of prophylaxis affects LMWH effectiveness.
| S-EPMC5812768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials have shown low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to be at least as safe and efficacious as unfractionated heparin (UFH) for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely-ill medical inpatients.ObjectiveTo compare clinical and economic outcomes among acutely-ill medical inpatients receiving the LMWH enoxaparin versus UFH prophylaxis in clinical practice.MethodsUsing a large, multi-hospital, US database, we identified persons aged > or =40 years hospitalized for > or =6 days for an acute medical condition (including circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, infectious diseases, or neoplasms) from Q4 1999 to Q1 2002. From these patients, those who received thromboprophylaxis with either enoxaparin or UFH were identified. Surgical patients and those requiring or ineligible for anticoagulation were excluded. We compared the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and all VTE (i.e., DVT and/or PE). Secondary outcomes were occurrence of side-effects, length of hospital stay and total costs.Results479 patients received enoxaparin prophylaxis and 2,837 received UFH. The incidence of VTE was 1.7% with enoxaparin prophylaxis versus 6.3% with UFH (RR = 0.26; p < 0.001). Occurrence of side effects, length of stay (10.00 days with enoxaparin vs. 10.26 days with UFH; p = 0.348) and total costs ($18,777 vs. $17,602; p = 0.463) were similar in the 2 groups.ConclusionWe observed a 74% lower risk of VTE among patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis versus UFH prophylaxis. There was no significant difference in side effects or economic outcomes. These results provide evidence that the LMWH enoxaparin is more effective than UFH in reducing the risk of VTE in current clinical practice.
| S-EPMC1624807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the role of thromboprophylaxis regimens on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 patients.DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on coronavirus disease 2019 patients, included between March 10, and April 30, 2020.SettingICU of an University Hospital in Belgium.Patients and interventionsCritically ill adult mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients were eligible if they underwent a CT pulmonary angiography, as part of the routine management in case of persistent hypoxemia or respiratory deterioration. The primary endpoint of this study was the occurrence of pulmonary embolism according to the use of standard thromboprophylaxis (i.e. subcutaneous enoxaparin 4,000 international units once daily) or high regimen thromboprophylaxis (i.e. subcutaneous enoxaparin 4,000 international units bid or therapeutic unfractioned heparin).Measurements and main resultsOf 49 mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019, 40 underwent CT pulmonary angiography after a median of 7 days (4-8 d) since ICU admission and 12 days (9-16 d) days since the onset of symptoms. Thirteen patients (33%) were diagnosed of pulmonary embolism, which was bilateral in six patients and localized in the right lung in seven patients. D-dimers on the day of CT pulmonary angiography had a predictive accuracy of 0.90 (95% CIs: 0.78-1.00) for pulmonary embolism. The use of high-regimen thromboprophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of pulmonary embolism (2/18; 11%) than standard regimen (11/22, 50%-odds ratio 0.13 [0.02-0.69]; p = 0.02); this difference remained significant even after adjustment for confounders. Six patients with pulmonary embolism (46%) and 14 patients without pulmonary embolism (52%) died at ICU discharge (odds ratio 0.79 [0.24-3.26]; p = 0.99).ConclusionsIn this study, one third of coronavirus disease 2019 mechanically ventilated patients have a pulmonary embolism visible on CT pulmonary angiography. High regimen thromboprophylaxis may decrease the occurrence of such complication.
| S-EPMC7437413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak presents unique challenges to the healthcare system. The lack of unified guidelines on what constitutes elective surgery left plastic surgeons without a clear framework to guide their practices. More urgently, the ambiguity in defining elective surgery leaves plastic surgeons without clear guidance as states begin to phase in these procedures.MethodsRecommendations issued by state governing bodies as of April 28, 2020, were reviewed. National society and federal guidelines pertaining to postponement and resumption of elective surgeries affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak were also reviewed. Recommendations based on the above are collated for plastic surgeons.ResultsThirty-six states and the District of Columbia provide recommendations regarding elective surgery. Cosmetic surgery is considered an elective surgery and should be postponed; this may be among the first elective surgeries to safely resume. Societal guidelines provide disease-specific recommendations for cancer-related surgery and breast reconstruction. Trauma, other cancer-related reconstruction, and hand surgeries are considered nonelective if postponement threatens life or limb or if a patient is highly symptomatic. Postponement and resumption of oncology, trauma, and hand surgery cases depend on disease stage and complexity of reconstruction. Pediatric craniofacial surgery presents unique challenges due to the time-sensitive nature of the interventions.ConclusionsGuidance on elective surgery is vague for plastic surgeons. Government recommendations and societal guidelines provide a framework for plastic surgeons to assess the elective nature of a surgical intervention and safety of resumption; however, a nuanced assessment must be made on local disease transmission, supply availability, and hospital capacity.
| S-EPMC7413809 | biostudies-literature