Dataset Information

Heparin-induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Heparin thromboprophylaxis is routinely administered during hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to the immune stimulation related to COVID-19, there is ongoing concern regarding a heightened incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and, medRxiv database to identify studies that reported clinical and laboratory characteristics and/or the incidence of HIT in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim was to systematically review the clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with confirmed HIT. The secondary objective was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of HIT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 7 studies including 5,849 patients revealed the pooled incidence of HIT in COVID-19 of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-3.2%; I2 = 89%). The estimated incidences were 1.2% (95%CI, 0.3-3.9%; I2 = 65%) versus 0.1% (95%CI, 0.0-0.4%; I2 = 0%) in therapeutic versus prophylactic heparin subgroups, respectively. The pooled incidences of HIT were higher in critically ill COVID-19 patients (2.2%, 95%CI, 0.6-8.3%; I2 = 72.5%) compared to non-critically ill patients (0.1%, 95%CI, 0.0-0.4%: I2 = 0%). There were 19 cases of confirmed HIT and one with autoimmune HIT for clinical and laboratory characterization. The median time from heparin initiation to HIT diagnosis was 13.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 10.75, 16.25) days. Twelve (63%) developed thromboembolism after heparin therapy. In conclusion, the incidence of HIT in COVID-19 patients was comparable to non-COVID-19 medical patients, with higher incidences with therapeutic anticoagulation and in critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Uaprasert N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8455241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo meta-analyse the clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after adenoviral vector vaccination.MethodsEighteen studies of VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Ad26.COV2.S vaccine administration were reviewed from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. The meta-analysis estimated the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding the incidence, manifestations, sites of thrombosis, diagnostic findings, and clinical outcomes.ResultsThe incidence of total venous thrombosis after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination was 28 (95% CI 12-52, I2=100%) per 100,000 doses administered. Of 664 patients included in the quantitative analysis (10 studies), the mean age of patients with VITT was 45.6 years (95% CI 43.8-47.4, I2=57%), with a female predominance (70%). Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary thromboembolism (PE), and splanchnic vein thrombosis occurred in 54%, 36%, and 19% of patients with VITT, respectively. The pooled incidence rate of CVT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (23 per 100,000 person-years) was higher than that reported in the pre-pandemic general population (0.9 per 100,000 person-years). Intracranial haemorrhage and extracranial thrombosis accompanied 47% and 33% of all patients with CVT, respectively. The antiplatelet factor 4 antibody positivity rate was 91% (95% CI 88-94, I2=0%) and the overall mortality was 32% (95% CI 24-41, I2=69%), and no significant difference was observed between heparin- and non-heparin-based anticoagulation treatments (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.50, I2=0%).ConclusionsPatients with VITT after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination most frequently presented with CVT following DVT/PE and splanchnic vein thrombosis, and about one-third of patients had a fatal outcome. This meta-analysis should provide a better understanding of VITT and assist clinicians in identifying VITT early to improve outcomes and optimise management.

Project description:Essentials Immunoassay specificity varies in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) testing. This meta-analysis examined 9 studies that tested samples by both IgG and polyspecific methods. IgG-specific assays confer superior diagnostic accuracy compared with polyspecific assays. These results further support recommendations in favor of IgG-specific testing.Background There are conflicting data on whether the IgG-specific or polyspecific antiplatelet factor 4/heparin (PF4/H) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is preferred for the laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Objectives To directly compare diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific versus polyspecific ELISA in HIT. Patients/Methods A systematic search yielded nine studies comprising 1948 patients with suspected HIT tested by both IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISAs and a reference standard against which the diagnostic accuracy of the ELISAs could be measured. Study quality was assessed by QUADAS-2 criteria. Results There was identical sensitivity for IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISAs (0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-0.99) and superior specificity of IgG-specific compared with polyspecific ELISA (0.87 [0.85-0.88] vs. 0.82 [0.80-0.84], respectively). Performance was similar in subgroups using the serotonin release assay and a single commercial ELISA manufacturer. The negative predictive values of IgG-specific and polyspecific ELISA were similarly high (0.99, [0.99-1.00], but the positive predictive value was superior with IgG-specific compared with polyspecific ELISA (0.56 [0.52-0.61] vs. 0.32 [0.28-0.35], respectively). The positive likelihood ratio (LR) was higher in IgG-specific than polyspecific ELISA, although negative LRs were similar. There was high risk of quality concerns in domains of index test and reference standard. Conclusions The superior diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific ELISA reinforces the ISTH-SSC recommendation for standardization of laboratory testing for HIT. Likelihood ratios of individual assays may be used in combination with clinical scoring systems as part of an integrated diagnostic algorithm for HIT.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of HIT expert probability (HEP) and 4T scores, and to evaluate the inter-observer reliability for the 4T score in a clinical setting.MethodsThis prospective study included HIT-suspected patients between 2016 and 2018. Three hematologists assessed the HEP and 4T scores. Correlations between scores and anti-platelet factor 4 (anti-PF4)/heparin antibodies were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the predictive accuracy of these two scoring models. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the inter-observer agreement of 4T scores between residents and hematologists.ResultsOf the 89 subjects included, 22 (24.7%) were positive for anti-PF4/heparin antibody. The correlations between antibody titer and either HEP or 4T scores were similar (r?=?0.392, P?<?0.01 for the HEP score; r?=?0.444, P?<?0.01 for the 4T score). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance was displayed between these two scores (AUC for the HEP score: 0.778 vs. AUC for the 4T score: 0.741, P?=?0.357). Only 72 4T scores were collected from the residents, with a surprisingly low percentage of observers (43.1%) presenting the four individual item scores which made up their 4T score. The AUC of 4T score assessed by residents and hematologists was 0.657 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 536-0.765) and 0.780 (95% CI: 0.667-0.869, P?<?0.05), respectively. The ICC of 4T score between residents and hematologists was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.65, P?<?0.01), demonstrating a fair inter-observer agreement.ConclusionsThe HEP score does not display a better performance for predicting HIT than the 4T score. With the unsatisfactory completion rate, the inter-observer agreement of 4T score in a tertiary hospital is fair, underscoring the necessity for continuing education for physicians.

Dataset Information

Heparin-induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets