Thromboembolic prevention and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: updated clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barnes GD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9111941 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Extended treatment is preconized in a significant proportion of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, limited direct/indirect comparisons are available to appropriately weight the benefit/risk ratio of the diverse treatments available. We aimed to compare the rate of symptomatic recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB), the net clinical benefit (VTE+MB) and death on vitamin-K antagonist (VKA), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and antiplatelet drugs for extended anticoagulation. METHODS:A systematic literature search through September 2018 identified randomized trials studying these pharmacologic therapies for extended anticoagulation following VTE. Treatment effects were calculated using network meta-analysis with frequentist fixed-effects model. RESULTS:18 trials (18,221 patients) were included in the analysis. All treatments reduced the risk of recurrence compared to placebo/observation. Nonetheless, VKA (RR 0.22; 95%CI 0.13-0.39) and DOAC (RRs ranging from 0.25-0.32; 95%CI ranging from 0.13-0.52) were more effective than aspirin, whereas low-dose VKA was less effective than standard-dose VKA (RR 2.47; 95%CI 1.34-4.55). The efficacy of DOAC was globally comparable to standard-adjusted dose VKA. Low- (RR 3.13; 95%CI 1.37-7.16) and standard-dose (RR 3.23; 95%CI 1.16-8.99) VKA also increased the risk of MB, which was not the case for any DOAC. Low-dose VKA and low-dose DOAC had similar effects on MB compared to standard-doses. Although there was a trend for reduced MB and enhanced net clinical benefit for DOAC compared to VKA, this was not statistically significant. The specific anticoagulant therapies had no significant effects on deaths. CONCLUSION:Standard-dose VKA and low/standard-dose DOAC share similar effects on VTE recurrence and MB, whereas aspirin and low-dose VKA were associated with lower benefit/risk ratio.
| S-EPMC6443183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStarting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.
| S-EPMC8903349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients who have had an unprovoked deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolus (PE) are at a high risk for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Extended "life-long" anticoagulation has been recommended in these patients. However, the risk benefit ratio of this approach is controversial and the role of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and aspirin is unclear. Furthermore, in some patients with a "weak provoking factor" there is clinical equipoise regarding continuation or cessation of anticoagulant therapy after treatment of the acute VTE event.A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risks (major bleeding) and benefits (recurrent VTE and mortality) of extended anticoagulation with vitamin k antagonists (VKA), DOACs and aspirin in patients with an unprovoked VTE and in those patients with clinical equipoise regarding continuation or cessation of anticoagulant therapy. In addition, we sought to determine the risk of recurrent VTE events once extended anti-thrombotic therapy was discontinued.MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, citation review of relevant primary and review articles.Randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the risk of recurrent VTE in patients with an unprovoked DVT or PE who had been treated for at least 3 months with a VKA or a DOAC and were then randomized to receive an oral anti-thrombotic agent or placebo for at least 6 additional months. We included studies that included patients in whom clinical equipoise existed regarding the continuation or cessation of anticoagulant therapy.Independent extraction of articles by both authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Data were abstracted on study size, study setting, initial event (DVT or PE), percentage of patients where the initial VTE event was unprovoked, the number of recurrent VTE events, major bleeds and mortality during the period of extended anticoagulation in the active treatment and placebo arms. In addition, we recorded the event rate once extended treatment was stopped. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the data. Studies were grouped according to the type of anti-thrombotic agent.Seven studies which enrolled 6778 patients met our inclusion criteria; two studies evaluated the extended use of Coumadin, three studies evaluated a DOAC and two studies evaluated the use of aspirin. The duration of followup varied from 6 to 37 months. In the Coumadin and aspirin studies 100% of the randomized patients had an unprovoked VTE, while in the DOAC studies between 73.5% and 93.2% of the VTE events were unprovoked. In the control group recurrent VTE occurred in 9.7% of patients compared to 2.8% in the active treatment group (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11-0.42, p<0.0001). VKA, DOACs and aspirin significantly reduced the risk of recurrent VTE, with VKA and DOACs being significantly more effective than aspirin. Major bleeding events occurred in 12 patients in the control group (0.4%) and 25 of 3815 (0.6%) patients in the active treatment group (OR 1.64; 95% CI 0.69-3.90, NS). There were 39 (1.3%) deaths in control patients and 33 (0.9%) deaths in the anti-thrombotic group during the treatment period (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.33, NS). Patients whose initial VTE event was a PE were more likely to have a recurrent PE than a DVT. The annualized event rate after discontinuation of extended antithrombotic therapy was 4.4% in the control group and 6.5% in the active treatment arm.VKA, DOACs and aspirin significantly reduced the risk of recurrent VTE, with DOACs and VKA being more effective than aspirin. The decision regarding life-long anticoagulation following an unprovoked DVT or PE should depend on the patients' risk for recurrent PE as well as the patients' values and preferences.
| S-EPMC4654552 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094585 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6485894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.Material and methodsThis report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).ResultsFor this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74).ConclusionsHospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.
| S-EPMC9451936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are strictly related; several independent risk factors of AF are often frequent in CKD patients. AF prevalence is very common among these patients, ranging between 15% and 20% in advanced stages of CKD. Moreover, the results of several studies showed that AF patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) have a higher mortality rate than patients with preserved renal function due to an increased incidence of stroke and an unpredicted elevated hemorrhagic risk. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently contraindicated in patients with ESRD and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), remaining the only drugs allowed, although they show numerous critical issues such as a narrow therapeutic window, increased tissue calcification and an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio with low stroke prevention effect and augmented risk of major bleeding. The purpose of this review is to shed light on the applications of DOAC therapy in CKD patients, especially in ESRD patients.
| S-EPMC7796391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke, has been reported. It is unknown whether anticoagulation can prevent these complications and improve outcome.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of (prophylactic and therapeutic dose) anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications and clinical outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 17 July 2020. After systematic analysis, eight studies were included. Analysis was stratified for the start of anticoagulation before or during hospital admission.ResultsThere was insufficient evidence that therapeutic anticoagulation could improve the outcome in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. None of the studies demonstrated improved mortality, except for one very small Italian study. Furthermore, none of the studies showed a positive effect of anticoagulation on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy, except for two studies demonstrating an association between anticoagulation and a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'low' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology.ConclusionAnalysis of the literature showed that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of anticoagulation on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question.
| S-EPMC8050812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy balance the risks of hemorrhage and thromboembolism. We sought to determine the association between anticoagulation intensity and the risk of hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events. We also sought to determine how under-or overanticoagulation would influence patient outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL databases to identify studies involving patients taking anticoagulants that reported person-years of observation and the number of hemorrhages or thromboemboli in 3 or more discrete ranges of international normalized ratios. We estimated the overall relative and absolute risks of events specific to anticoagulation intensity. RESULTS: We included 19 studies. The risk of hemorrhage increased significantly at high international normalized ratios. Compared with the therapeutic ratio of 2-3, the relative risk (RR) of hemorrhage (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 2.7 (1.8-3.9; p < 0.01) at a ratio of 3-5 and 21.8 (12.1-39.4; p < 0.01) at a ratio greater than 5. The risk of thromboemboli increased significantly at ratios less than 2, with a relative risk of 3.5 (95% CI 2.8-4.4; p < 0.01). The risk of hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events was lower at ratios of 3-5 (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6) than at ratios of less than 2 (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.1; p = 0.10). We found that a ratio of 2-3 had the lowest absolute risk (AR) of events (AR 4.3%/yr, 95% CI 3.0%-6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The risks of hemorrhage and thromboemboli are minimized at international normalized ratios of 2-3. Ratios that are moderately higher than this therapeutic range appear safe and more effective than subtherapeutic ratios.
| S-EPMC2474869 | biostudies-other
Project description:Introduction: It is well-established that clinical pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services achieve superior anticoagulation control, with a positive impact. At King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the structure of anticoagulation management is a pharmacist-managed specialty service. With the current COVID-19 situation, measures were taken to assure the continuity of patient care by establishing tele-pharmacy anticoagulation clinics. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study with patients prescribed anticoagulation and followed up for 3 months. Since establishing the anticoagulation virtual clinic in March 2020, 270 patients were recruited in the study. The data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, indication for anticoagulation, intended duration of treatment, warfarin dose, testing of International Normalized Ratio (INR), INR target, range of INR values, time INR that was within the therapeutic range (TTR), and complications of therapy (bleeding and/or bruises). The patients were asked to complete the pharmacist satisfaction survey (PSS) after their consultation to assess patient satisfaction with the new virtual consultation system. Linguistic and cultural validation was conducted for the questionnaire. Results: A total of 270 patients were included in the study. The mean percentage of overall INR values in the range was 59.39% ± 32.84, and the mean time with the overall INR was within the therapeutic range 57.81% ± 32.08. Thirty-one percent of the sample had good anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range >70%). The median satisfaction score was 32 (IQR 28-36) with a maximum score of 40. Conclusion: This is the first study to assess the tele-pharmacy anticoagulation clinic's efficiency and patient satisfaction in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This type of consultation was as effective as face-to-face consultations. The study also highlighted that though the reduction in the cost of care was not substantial, there was a significant increase in resource (clinical pharmacist) utilization as a result of this model. The adoption of tele-pharmacy resulted in time savings for the clinical pharmacists who can be utilized in many other improvement projects in adult ambulatory clinics to ensure the delivery of better quality and safe patient care.
| S-EPMC8459665 | biostudies-literature