Dataset Information

Intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for coagulopathy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs.

Results

This meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I²=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I²=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I²=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I²=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I²=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I²=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I²=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Conclusions

We recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 ( CRD42021273780 ).

SUBMITTER: Zhang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlthough patients with severe COVID-19 are known to be at high risk of developing thrombotic events, the effects of anticoagulation (AC) dose and duration on in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients remain poorly understood and controversial. The goal of this study was to investigate survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients who received prophylactic or therapeutic dose AC and analyze the mortality rate with respect to detailed demographic and clinical characteristics.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational study of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York who received either prophylactic (n = 158) or therapeutic dose AC (n = 153). Primary outcome was in-hospital death assessed by survival analysis and covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsFor the first 3 weeks of ICU stay, we observed similar survival curves for prophylactic and therapeutic AC groups. However, after 3 or more weeks of ICU stay, the therapeutic AC group, characterized by high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), had markedly higher death incidence rates with 8.6 deaths (95% CI = 6.2-11.9 deaths) per 1,000 person-days and about 5 times higher risk of death (adj. HR = 4.89, 95% CI = 1.71-14.0, p = 0.003) than the prophylactic group (2.4 deaths [95% CI = 0.9-6.3 deaths] per 1,000 person-days). Among therapeutic AC users with prolonged ICU admission, non-survivors were characterized by older males with depressed lymphocyte counts and cardiovascular disease.ConclusionsOur findings raise the possibility that prolonged use of high dose AC, independent of thrombotic events or clinical background, might be associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Moreover, AKI, age, lymphocyte count, and cardiovascular disease may represent important risk factors that could help identify at-risk patients who require long-term hospitalization with therapeutic dose AC treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial.MethodsWe systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78-1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98-1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19-2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56-3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39-0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66-1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34-1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results.ConclusionsIn our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs.Trial registrationProtocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).

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:BACKGROUND:Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. METHODS:The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 × 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20,000/fL) for the anticoagulation hypothesis. In a prespecified secondary analysis for non-inferiority, the study will test for the non-inferiority of intermediate intensity versus standard dose anticoagulation for major bleeding, considering a non-inferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio. Key safety endpoints for the statin hypothesis include rise in liver enzymes >3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundBoth COVID-19 and pregnancy are associated with hypercoagulability. Due to the increased risk for thrombosis, the United States National Institute of Health's recommendation for prophylactic anticoagulant use for pregnant patients has expanded from patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 manifestation to all patients hospitalized for the manifestation of COVID-19 (no guideline: before December 26, 2020; first update: December 27, 2022; second update: February 24, 2022-present). However, no study has evaluated this recommendation.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to characterize prophylactic anticoagulant use among hospitalized pregnant people with COVID-19 from March 20, 2020, to October 19, 2022.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in large US health care systems across 7 states. The cohort of interest was pregnant patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, without previous coagulopathy or contraindication to anticoagulants (n=2767). The treatment group consisted of patients prescribed prophylactic dose anticoagulation between 2 days before and 14 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=191). The control group was patients with no anticoagulant exposure between 14 days before and 60 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=2534). We ascertained the use of prophylactic anticoagulants with attention to the updates in guidelines and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We propensity score matched the treatment and control group 1:1 on the most important features contributing to the prophylactic anticoagulant administration status classification. Outcome measures included coagulopathy, bleeding, COVID-19-related complications, and maternal-fetal health outcomes. Additionally, the inpatient anticoagulant administration rate was validated in a nationwide population from Truveta, a collective of 700 hospitals across the United States.ResultsThe overall administration rate of prophylactic anticoagulants was 7% (191/2725). It was lowest after the second guideline update (no guideline: 27/262, 10%; first update: 145/1663, 8.72%; second update: 19/811, 2.3%; P<.001) and during the omicron-dominant period (Wild type: 45/549, 8.2%; Alpha: 18/129, 14%; Delta: 81/507, 16%; and Omicron: 47/1551, 3%; P<.001). Models developed on retrospective data showed that the variable most associated with the administration of inpatient prophylactic anticoagulant was comorbidities prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients who were administered prophylactic anticoagulant were also more likely to receive supplementary oxygen (57/191, 30% vs 9/188, 5%; P<.001). There was no statistical difference in a new diagnosis of coagulopathy, bleeding, or maternal-fetal health outcomes between those who received treatment and the matched control group.ConclusionsMost hospitalized pregnant patients with COVID-19 did not receive prophylactic anticoagulants across health care systems as recommended by guidelines. Guideline-recommended treatment was administered more frequently to patients with greater COVID-19 illness severity. Given the low rate of administration and differences between treated and untreated cohorts, efficacy could not be assessed.