Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac285, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1948428

ABSTRACT

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on nonfatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods: We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) vs prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results: Eleven RCTs were included (N = 5873). Intensified vs prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .79-1.10]). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .49-1.44]; I 2 = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, .41-.69]; I 2 = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = .04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.17-2.56]) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusions: Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend toward reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs. Clinical Trials Registration. CRD42021273449 (PROSPERO).

2.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1898342

ABSTRACT

Objectives Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified versus prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (relative risk (RR) 0.93;95%CI 0.79–1.10). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-ICU patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies;RR 0.84;95% CI 0.49 - 1.44;I2 = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41–0.69;I2 = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = 0.04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.17–2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusion Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs.

3.
CJC Open ; 4(6): 568-576, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1866977

ABSTRACT

Background: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed, but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging. Methods: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3500 outpatients and 2500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and aspirin vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization, it is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization, it is major thrombotic events, need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: At the completion of enrollment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3917 patients, and the inpatient trial had enrolled 2611 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals, and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine, and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban, across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.


Contexte: Il est urgent de mettre au point des traitements efficaces contre la COVID-19, mais il n'est pas facile de réaliser des essais à répartition aléatoire dans un contexte pandémique. Méthodologie: Les essais internationaux factoriels ACT (Anti-Coronavirus Therapy) avaient un objectif d'inscription de 3 500 patients externes et de 2 500 patients hospitalisés présentant une COVID-19 symptomatique. L'essai mené auprès de patients externes visait à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et l'aspirine par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la thrombose majeure, l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'aspirine. L'essai mené auprès de patients hospitalisés visant à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et un traitement associant le rivaroxaban à 2,5 mg deux fois par jour et l'aspirine à 100 mg une fois par jour par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la survenue de manifestations thrombotiques majeures, le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'association rivaroxaban-aspirine. Résultats: À la fin de la période d'inscription, le 10 février 2022, 3 917 patients externes et 2 611 patients hospitalisés formaient la population des essais. Certains aspects se sont révélés problématiques, notamment le manque de données préliminaires sur les interventions à évaluer, les incertitudes liées aux taux d'événements prévus, les retards touchant les approbations réglementaires et éthiques et les interventions de recherche, de même que l'évolution de la pandémie de COVID-19. Conclusions: Les essais ACT détermineront l'efficacité du traitement anti-inflammatoire par la colchicine et du traitement antithrombotique par l'aspirine, administrée seule ou en association avec le rivaroxaban, contre la COVID-19 légère, modérée ou sévère. Les leçons tirées de ces essais orienteront la planification d'essais ultérieurs.

4.
N Engl J Med ; 386(21): 1986-1997, 2022 05 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1864788

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).


Subject(s)
Antifibrinolytic Agents , Tranexamic Acid , Antifibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Antifibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Canada , Hemorrhage/etiology , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Humans , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Thrombosis/chemically induced , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Tranexamic Acid/adverse effects , Tranexamic Acid/therapeutic use
5.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(6): 689-702, 2022 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851566

ABSTRACT

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer's role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. TAKE-HOME POINTS.

6.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329852

ABSTRACT

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods: We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard prophylactic dose anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality at end of follow-up or discharge. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events, and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results: Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in mortality for up to 45 days compared with prophylactic anticoagulation: 17.5% (501/2861) died in the intensified anticoagulation group and 18.8% (513/2734) died in the prophylactic anticoagulation group, relative risk (RR) 0.93;95%CI, 0.79 – 1.10. On subgroup analysis, there was a possible signal of mortality reduction for inpatients admitted to general wards, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies;RR 0.84;95% CI, 0.49 – 1.44;I2 = 75%) and not significantly different to studies performed in the ICU (interaction P = 0.51). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced with intensified anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis (8 studies;RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41 – 0.69;I2 = 0%). This effect was driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing on subgroup analysis (interaction P = 0.04). Major bleeding was increased with use of intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17 – 2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusion: Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU hospitalised patients requires exploration in additional RCTs.

7.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e060000, 2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736074

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: More than 1 million elective total hip and knee replacements are performed annually in the USA with 2% risk of clinical pulmonary embolism (PE), 0.1%-0.5% fatal PE, and over 1000 deaths. Antithrombotic prophylaxis is standard of care but evidence is limited and conflicting. We will compare effectiveness of three commonly used chemoprophylaxis agents to prevent all-cause mortality (ACM) and clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) while avoiding bleeding complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after HiP and KneE Replacement is a large randomised pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with non-inferiority design and target enrolment of 20 000 patients comparing aspirin (81 mg two times a day), low-intensity warfarin (INR (International Normalized Ratio) target 1.7-2.2) and rivaroxaban (10 mg/day). The primary effectiveness outcome is aggregate of VTE and ACM, primary safety outcome is clinical bleeding complications, and patient-reported outcomes are determined at 1, 3 and 6 months. Primary data analysis is per protocol, as preferred for non-inferiority trials, with secondary analyses adherent to intention-to-treat principles. All non-fatal outcomes are captured from patient and clinical reports with independent blinded adjudication. Study design and oversight are by a multidisciplinary stakeholder team including a 10-patient advisory board. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the Medical University of South Carolina provides central regulatory oversight. Patients aged 21 or older undergoing primary or revision hip or knee replacement are block randomised by site and procedure; those on chronic anticoagulation are excluded. Recruitment commenced at 30 North American centres in December 2016. Enrolment currently exceeds 13 500 patients, representing 33% of those eligible at participating sites, and is projected to conclude in July 2024; COVID-19 may force an extension. Results will inform antithrombotic choice by patients and other stakeholders for various risk cohorts, and will be disseminated through academic publications, meeting presentations and communications to advocacy groups and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02810704.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Pulmonary Embolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/complications , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Young Adult
8.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 28: 10760296211073922, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666573

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial demonstrated that in patients with peripheral arterial disease, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin reduces the risk of major adverse limb events, but it is not known whether this combination can also improve symptoms in patients with intermittent claudication. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the combination on claudication distance. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty-eight patients with intermittent claudication will be randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily or aspirin 100 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in claudication distance from the baseline to 24 weeks, measured by 6 min walking test and treadmill test. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The COMPASS CLAUDICATION trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the effect of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin on claudication distance in patients with peripheral arterial disease.


Subject(s)
Aspirin/therapeutic use , Intermittent Claudication/drug therapy , Peripheral Arterial Disease/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Exercise Test , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intermittent Claudication/diagnosis , Intermittent Claudication/etiology , Male , Peripheral Arterial Disease/complications , Peripheral Arterial Disease/diagnosis , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2141328, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592856

ABSTRACT

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Intubation, Intratracheal , Respiration, Artificial , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Colchicine/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care
10.
11.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 77(15): 1903-1921, 2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1235916

ABSTRACT

Endothelial injury and microvascular/macrovascular thrombosis are common pathophysiological features of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, the optimal thromboprophylactic regimens remain unknown across the spectrum of illness severity of COVID-19. A variety of antithrombotic agents, doses, and durations of therapy are being assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focus on outpatients, hospitalized patients in medical wards, and patients critically ill with COVID-19. This paper provides a perspective of the ongoing or completed RCTs related to antithrombotic strategies used in COVID-19, the opportunities and challenges for the clinical trial enterprise, and areas of existing knowledge, as well as data gaps that may motivate the design of future RCTs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Thromboembolism/virology
12.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 77(2): 186-188, 2021 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023621
13.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 26(6): 302-306, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808806

ABSTRACT

Since the initial description of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and its declaration as a worldwide pandemic, the number of publications on the novel virus has increased rapidly. We studied the trends and quality of evidence in early SARS-CoV-2 publications. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed for papers published between 1 January 2020 and 21 April 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility in this systematic review. The search yielded 2504 citations published between January and February 2020 or an unspecified date, 109 of which remained for extraction after screening. Data extracted included study design, year of publication, country of basis, journal of publication, impact factor of publishing journal, study sample size, number of citations and topic of investigation. Study design-specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate the scientific rigour of all included papers: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used for case series, Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles scale for narrative reviews, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews. The overall quality of the literature was low-moderate. Of 541 papers that reported clinical characteristics, 295 were commentaries/expert opinions and 36 were case reports. There were no randomised clinical trials, 45 case series studies, 58 narrative reviews, 1 cohort study and 5 systematic reviews. We encourage clinicians to be attentive to these findings when utilising early SARS-CoV-2 evidence in their practices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Humans , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 75(23): 2950-2973, 2020 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-547082

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, because of excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, the authors review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, of those with pre-existing thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/pharmacology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections , Fibrinolytic Agents/pharmacology , Pandemics , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/pharmacology , Pneumonia, Viral , Thromboembolism , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/etiology , Thromboembolism/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome
15.
Thromb Haemost ; 120(7): 1004-1024, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-418767

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), currently a worldwide pandemic, is a viral illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The suspected contribution of thrombotic events to morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients has prompted a search for novel potential options for preventing COVID-19-associated thrombotic disease. In this article by the Global COVID-19 Thrombosis Collaborative Group, we describe novel dosing approaches for commonly used antithrombotic agents (especially heparin-based regimens) and the potential use of less widely used antithrombotic drugs in the absence of confirmed thrombosis. Although these therapies may have direct antithrombotic effects, other mechanisms of action, including anti-inflammatory or antiviral effects, have been postulated. Based on survey results from this group of authors, we suggest research priorities for specific agents and subgroups of patients with COVID-19. Further, we review other agents, including immunomodulators, that may have antithrombotic properties. It is our hope that the present document will encourage and stimulate future prospective studies and randomized trials to study the safety, efficacy, and optimal use of these agents for prevention or management of thrombosis in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Inflammation/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Animals , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Glycosaminoglycans/therapeutic use , Hemostasis , Humans , Inflammation/complications , Inflammation/immunology , Pandemics , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/complications , Thrombosis/immunology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL