Dataset Information

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.

Methods

We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.

Findings

From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.

Interpretation

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Funding

Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

SUBMITTER: Lopes RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177770 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely.Methods and analysisThis is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04808882.

Project description:BackgroundPatients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk for thrombotic events after discharge; the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is unknown.MethodsIn this open-label, multicentre, randomised trial conducted at 14 centres in Brazil, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism [IMPROVE] venous thromboembolism [VTE] score of ≥4 or 2-3 with a D-dimer >500 ng/mL) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, at hospital discharge, rivaroxaban 10 mg/day or no anticoagulation for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome in an intention-to-treat analysis was a composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism, asymptomatic venous thromboembolism on bilateral lower-limb venous ultrasound and CT pulmonary angiogram, symptomatic arterial thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death at day 35. Adjudication was blinded. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The primary and safety analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04662684.FindingsFrom Oct 8, 2020, to June 29, 2021, 997 patients were screened. Of these patients, 677 did not meet eligibility criteria; the remaining 320 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=160 [50%]) or no anticoagulation (n=160 [50%]). All patients received thromboprophylaxis with standard doses of heparin during hospitalisation. 165 (52%) patients were in the intensive care unit while hospitalised. 197 (62%) patients had an IMPROVE score of 2-3 and elevated D-dimer levels and 121 (38%) had a score of 4 or more. Two patients (one in each group) were lost to follow-up due to withdrawal of consent and not included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in five (3%) of 159 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and 15 (9%) of 159 patients assigned to no anticoagulation (relative risk 0·33, 95% CI 0·12-0·90; p=0·0293). No major bleeding occurred in either study group. Allergic reactions occurred in two (1%) patients in the rivaroxaban group.InterpretationIn patients at high risk discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days improved clinical outcomes compared with no extended thromboprophylaxis.FundingBayer.

Project description:IntroductionThe Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS) is used to treat patients with liver failure. Observational data suggest that citrate anticoagulation during MARS is feasible. Comparative studies on the optimal anticoagulation regimen during MARS are lacking. The aim of the current study was to evaluate two heparin-free anticoagulation regimens.MethodsWe performed a prospective randomized open-label crossover study of regional citrate anticoagulation against no anticoagulation. Ten patients (age 55±11 years) with liver failure undergoing MARS treatment were included. The primary endpoint was completion of MARS sessions. Secondary endpoints included treatment efficacy and safety. Longevity of MARS treatment was plotted as a Kaplan-Meier estimate. Fisher's exact test was used for contingency table analysis.ResultsOf a total of 27 6-hour sessions, four sessions had to be terminated prematurely, three due to occlusive clotting of the extracorporeal circuit and one due to uncontrollable bleeding from the vascular access site. All four events occurred in the group without anticoagulation. Between group comparison demonstrated citrate anticoagulation to significantly increase the likelihood of completed MARS treatment (Fisher's exact test, P 0.04). This translates into higher bilirubin reduction ratios when citrate was applied (reduction ratio 0.25 vs. 0.15, P 0.02). Systemic ionized calcium concentrations were significantly reduced during citrate anticoagulation (P<0.001) but remained within a safe range. We observed no major adverse events.ConclusionsRegional citrate anticoagulation in patients with liver failure is feasible. Citrate anticoagulation provides superior patency of the extracorporeal circuit. Avoidance of anticoagulation during MARS results in significant loss of treatment efficacy, due to treatment downtime. Additional studies are required to identify the optimal anticoagulation regimen for extracorporeal circulation in patients with liver failure.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingNationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system.ParticipantsAll 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion.ResultsOf 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsEarly initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.

Project description:[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3?years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3?months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk?=?1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P?=?0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P?=?0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P?=?0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18?192?±?27?679 € versus 11?131?±?13? €, P?<?0.033).18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.NCT00624260.