Dataset Information

High-dose versus low-dose venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Standard doses of anticoagulant prophylaxis may not be sufficiently effective for the prevention of VTE. The objective of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose versus low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Material and methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose with low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of VTE and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding.

Results

A total of 5470 patients from 9 RCTs were included. Four trials included critically ill patients, four non-critically ill patients, and one included both. VTE occurred in 2.9% of patients on high-dose and in 5.7% of patients on low-dose thromboprophylaxis (relative risk [RR] 0.53; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.41-0.69; I² = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome, 22). Major bleeding occurred in 2.5% and 1.4% of patients, respectively (RR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.20-2.66; I² = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome, 100). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.26; I² = 47%). The risk of VTE was significantly reduced by high-dose thromboprophylaxis in non-critically ill (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; I² = 0%), but not in critically ill patients (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.21; I² = 36%).

Discussion

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, high-dose thromboprophylaxis is more effective than low-dose for the prevention of VTE but increases the risk of major bleeding.

SUBMITTER: Valeriani E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9244067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days is the recommended treatment for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The evidence on the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of 6 mg daily vs. 20 mg daily of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe conducted a single-center, randomized, clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Participants were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone 6 mg daily or dexamethasone 20 mg daily, and were stratified by the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The primary outcome was clinical improvement equal to or greater than 2 points by OSCI on day 28. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, intensive care unit-free days, and ventilator-free days on day 28.ResultsOf the 107 patients who enrolled and completed the follow up, 55 patients enrolled in the low-dose group and 52 patients enrolled in the high-dose group. Treatment with dexamethasone 20 mg daily compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily did not result in better clinical improvement based on OSCI on day 28 (71.2% vs. 78.2%; odds ratio, 1.45 [0.55-3.86]; p = 0.403). For participants who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization, the 6-mg group had better survival than the 20-mg group on day 28 (100% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.025). Although more participants in the 6-mg group received immune modulators (40% vs. 21.2%; p = 0.035), 50% of death cases in the 20-mg group who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization received immune modulators.ConclusionsDexamethasone 20 mg daily did not result in better clinical outcome improvement, and was probably associated with higher 28-day mortality in patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation, compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily.Trial registrationClinialtrials.gov number, NCT04707534, registered January 13, 2021.

Project description:The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose "control group" were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis "intervention group". Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.