Dataset Information

Randomized trials of therapeutic heparin for COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs).

Results and conclusions

There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77). Organ support-free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions with illness severity for all-cause death (P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Sholzberg M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8681879 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:IntroductionChinese patent medicine (CPM) is an indispensable part of traditional Chinese medicine. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifests is an acute respiratory infectious disease. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects and safety of oral CPM for COVID-19.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested oral CPM for the treatment of COVID-19 identified from publications in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, BioRxiv, MedRxiv and arXiv before November 2nd, 2020. The risk of bias for each trial was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the online GRADEpro tool.ResultsSeven RCTs including 1079 participants were identified. The overall bias was assessed as "-high risk of bias" for all included trials. Oral CPM investigated were: Lianhua Qingwen capsule/granules (LHQW), Jinhua Qinggan granules (JHQG), Huoxiang Zhengqi dripping pills (HXZQ), Toujie Quwen granules (TJQW) and Lianhua Qingke granules (LHQK). Compared with conventional western therapy alone for people with COVID-19: regarding the main outcomes, the results showed that oral CPM combined with conventional western therapy improved cure rate (RR = 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38, involving LHQW and TJQW), reduced aggravation rate (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI 0.29 - 0.85, involving LHQW, JHQG, LHQK and TJQW); with regard to additional outcomes, the results showed that add-on oral CPM shortened the duration of fever, cough and fatigue, improved the recovery rate of cough and fatigue, and increased the improvement and recovery rate of chest CT manifestations. There were some differences in therapeutic effects among various CPMs for the same COVID-19 outcome. The use of TJQW and LHQG appeared not to increase the risk of adverse events, but JHQG may cause mild diarrhea.ConclusionLow-certainty or very low-certainty evidence demonstrated that oral CPM may have add-on potential therapeutic effects for patients with non-serious COVID-19. These findings need to be further confirmed by well-designed clinical trials with adequate sample sizes.

Project description:Percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin plus bail-out glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors has been shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin plus routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in preventing cardiac ischemic events, but with a lower bleeding risk. It is unknown whether bivalirudin would have the same beneficial effects if compared with heparin when the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between treatment arms. We searched the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception until March 2015 for randomized trials that compared bivalirudin to heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We required that the intended use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between the study groups. Summary estimates were principally constructed by the Peto method. Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria, which yielded 25,824 patients. Bivalirudin versus heparin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.92, P = .002, I2 = 16.9%), with a similar hazard of myocardial infarction (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22, P = .11, I2 = 35.8%), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, P = .21, I2 = 31.5%) and major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.14, P = .46, I2 = 53.9%). Bivalirudin was associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92, P = .001, I2 = 63.5%). The dose of heparin in the control arm modified this association; when the dose of unfractionated heparin in the control arm was ≥ 100 units/kg, bivalirudin was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.68, P < .0001), but when the dose of unfractionated heparin was ≤ 75 units/kg, bivalirudin was not associated with reduction in bleeding (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, P = .36). Among patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis. Bivalirudin may be associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding; however, this benefit was no longer apparent when compared with a dose of unfractionated heparin ≤ 75 units/kg.