Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 197
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Open Heart ; 8(2)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523054

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19 , Drug Substitution/standards , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , State Medicine/standards , Warfarin/administration & dosage , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Tests , Drug Monitoring , Drug Prescriptions , Drug Substitution/adverse effects , Drug Utilization/standards , England , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Safety , Primary Health Care/standards , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Warfarin/adverse effects
3.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord ; 9(3): 605-614.e2, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510080

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Early reports suggest that patients with novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection carry a significant risk of altered coagulation with an increased risk for venous thromboembolic events. This report investigates the relationship of significant COVID-19 infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) as reflected in the patient clinical and laboratory characteristics. METHODS: We reviewed the demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory and radiologic evaluations, results of venous duplex imaging and mortality of COVID-19-positive patients (18-89 years) admitted to the Indiana University Academic Health Center. Using oxygen saturation, radiologic findings, and need for advanced respiratory therapies, patients were classified into mild, moderate, or severe categories of COVID-19 infection. A descriptive analysis was performed using univariate and bivariate Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to examine the distribution of patient characteristics and compare the DVT outcomes. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of experiencing DVT and a receiver operating curve analysis to identify the optimal cutoff for d-dimer to predict DVT in this COVID-19 cohort. Time to the diagnosis of DVT from admission was analyzed using log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Our study included 71 unique COVID-19-positive patients (mean age, 61 years) categorized as having 3% mild, 14% moderate, and 83% severe infection and evaluated with 107 venous duplex studies. DVT was identified in 47.8% of patients (37% of examinations) at an average of 5.9 days after admission. Patients with DVT were predominantly male (67%; P = .032) with proximal venous involvement (29% upper and 39% in the lower extremities with 55% of the latter demonstrating bilateral involvement). Patients with DVT had a significantly higher mean d-dimer of 5447 ± 7032 ng/mL (P = .0101), and alkaline phosphatase of 110 IU/L (P = .0095) than those without DVT. On multivariable analysis, elevated d-dimer (P = .038) and alkaline phosphatase (P = .021) were associated with risk for DVT, whereas age, sex, elevated C-reactive protein, and ferritin levels were not. A receiver operating curve analysis suggests an optimal d-dimer value of 2450 ng/mL cutoff with 70% sensitivity, 59.5% specificity, and 61% positive predictive value, and 68.8% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that males with severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization are at highest risk for developing DVT. Elevated d-dimers and alkaline phosphatase along with our multivariable model can alert the clinician to the increased risk of DVT requiring early evaluation and aggressive treatment.


Subject(s)
Alkaline Phosphatase/blood , COVID-19 , Extremities , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Risk Assessment/methods , Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex , Venous Thrombosis , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Coagulation , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Early Diagnosis , Extremities/blood supply , Extremities/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Indiana/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex/methods , Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex/statistics & numerical data , Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control
4.
Anesthesiology ; 135(6): 1076-1090, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1507118

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients remains high. Although randomized controlled trials must continue to definitively evaluate treatments, further hypothesis-generating efforts to identify candidate treatments are required. This study's hypothesis was that certain treatments are associated with lower COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: This was a 1-yr retrospective cohort study involving all COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units in six hospitals affiliated with Yale New Haven Health System from February 13, 2020, to March 4, 2021. The exposures were any COVID-19-related pharmacologic and organ support treatments. The outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: This study analyzed 2,070 patients after excluding 23 patients who died within 24 h after intensive care unit admission and 3 patients who remained hospitalized on the last day of data censoring. The in-hospital mortality was 29% (593 of 2,070). Of 23 treatments analyzed, apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.363 to 0.48; corrected CI, 0.336 to 0.52) and aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87; corrected CI, 0.54 to 0.96) were associated with lower mortality based on the multivariable analysis with multiple testing correction. Propensity score-matching analysis showed an association between apixaban treatment and lower mortality (with vs. without apixaban, 27% [96 of 360] vs. 37% [133 of 360]; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.337 to 0.69) and an association between aspirin treatment and lower mortality (with vs. without aspirin, 26% [121 of 473] vs. 30% [140 of 473]; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.78). Enoxaparin showed similar associations based on the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97; corrected CI, 0.61 to 1.05) and propensity score-matching analysis (with vs. without enoxaparin, 25% [87 of 347] vs. 34% [117 of 347]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.367 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the known hypercoagulability in severe COVID-19, the use of apixaban, enoxaparin, or aspirin was independently associated with lower mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Cohort Studies , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
6.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 42(2): 316-326, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493288

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, acute limb ischemia, and isolated strokes, all in the face of prophylactic and even therapeutic anticoagulation, are features of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coagulopathy. It seems well established at this time that a COVID-19 patient deemed sick enough to be hospitalized, should receive at least prophylactic dose anticoagulation. However, should some hospitalized patients have dosage escalation to intermediate dose? Should some be considered for full-dose anticoagulation without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anticoagulation be monitored? Should patients receive postdischarge anticoagulation and with what medication and for how long? What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? Is antiphospholipid antibody part of this syndrome? What is the significance of isolated ischemic stroke and limb ischemia in this disorder and how does this interface with the rest of the clinical and laboratory features of this disorder? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Ambulatory Care , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Combinations , Duration of Therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombolytic Therapy , Thrombophilia/blood , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/immunology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/immunology
7.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord ; 21(1): 522, 2021 10 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486551

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the high prevalence of COVID-19 infections worldwide, the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is becoming an increasingly recognized entity. This syndrome presents in patients several weeks after infection with COVID-19 and is associated with thrombosis, elevated inflammatory markers, hemodynamic compromise and cardiac dysfunction. Treatment is often with steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). The pathologic basis of myocardial injury in MIS-A, however, is not well characterized. In our case report, we obtained endomyocardial biopsy that revealed a pattern of myocardial injury similar to that found in COVID-19 cardiac specimens. CASE PRESENTATION: A 26-year-old male presented with fevers, chills, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea 5 weeks after his COVID-19 infection. His SARS-CoV-2 PCR was negative and IgG was positive, consistent with prior infection. He was found to be in cardiogenic shock with biventricular failure, requiring inotropes and diuretics. Given concern for acute fulminant myocarditis, an endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed, showing an inflammatory infiltrate consisting predominantly of interstitial macrophages with scant T lymphocytes. The histologic pattern was similar to that of cardiac specimens from COVID-19 patients, helping rule out myocarditis as the prevailing diagnosis. His case was complicated by persistent hypoxemia, and a computed tomography scan revealed pulmonary emboli. He received IVIg, steroids, and anticoagulation with rapid recovery of biventricular function. CONCLUSIONS: MIS-A should be considered as the diagnosis in patients presenting several weeks after COVID-19 infection with severe inflammation and multi-organ involvement. In our case, EMB facilitated identification of MIS-A and guided therapy. The patient's biventricular function recovered with IVIg and steroids.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Myocarditis/diagnosis , Shock, Cardiogenic , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome , Adult , Biopsy/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cardiotonic Agents/administration & dosage , Diagnosis, Differential , Diuretics/administration & dosage , Electrocardiography/methods , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/administration & dosage , Male , Myocardium/pathology , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock, Cardiogenic/diagnosis , Shock, Cardiogenic/drug therapy , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/physiopathology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/drug therapy , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD008077, 2021 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Contusions/prevention & control , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/administration & dosage , Injections, Subcutaneous/methods , Pain, Procedural/prevention & control , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Bias , Contusions/chemically induced , Contusions/pathology , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/pathology , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement/methods , Pain, Procedural/etiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Time Factors
9.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 27: 10760296211039288, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448131

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that can be life-threatening involving immune and inflammatory responses, and that can result in potentially lethal complications, including venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Forming an integrative approach to thrombo-prophylaxis and coagulation treatment for COVID-19 patients ensues. We aim at reviewing the literature for anticoagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection to provide a summary on anticoagulation for this patient population. COVID-19 infection is associated with a state of continuous inflammation, which results in macrophage activation syndrome and an increased rate of thrombosis. Risk assessment models to predict the risk of thrombosis in critically ill patients have not yet been validated. Currently published guidelines suggest the use of prophylactic intensity over intermediate intensity or therapeutic intensity anticoagulant for patients with critical illness or acute illness related to COVID-19 infection. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who are diagnosed with acute VTE are considered to have a provoking factor, and, therefore, treatment duration should be at least 3 months. Patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism should receive parenteral over oral anticoagulants with low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux preferred over unfractionated heparin. In patients with impending hemodynamic compromise due to PE, and who are not at increased risk for bleeding, reperfusion may be necessary. Internists should remain updated on new emerging evidence regarding anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. Awaiting these findings, we invite internists to perform individualized decisions that are unique for every patient and to base them on clinical judgment for risk assessment.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Consensus , Critical Illness , Disease Management , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Fondaparinux/adverse effects , Fondaparinux/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/administration & dosage , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Inpatients , Male , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Risk , Thrombophilia/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control
10.
Qual Manag Health Care ; 30(4): 276-279, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437859

ABSTRACT

Health care systems have encountered unprecedented challenges during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such as standardizing care in the absence of high-quality data. As an emblematic example, preliminary data and early anecdotal experience suggested that a major driver of COVID-19 pathophysiology was hypercoagulability, suggesting the need for aggressive anticoagulation. In this article, we describe the rapid guidance process for the development of an anticoagulation protocol for COVID-19. Preliminary evidence was collected from multidisciplinary experts within our institution to inform the first protocol draft. After implementation, we rapidly acquired data to inform a revision, with subsequent modifications based on higher quality data. The description of this process can inform other health systems when faced with a similar crisis characterized by high patient volumes, poor clinical outcomes, lack of proven effective therapies, and rapid flow of information from multiple sources of variable credibility.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Protocols , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
11.
S Afr Med J ; 111(9): 841-848, 2021 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1404039

ABSTRACT

The increased use of heparin during the current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risk of a rare but potentially serious complication of heparin therapy, viz. heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). This is a short review on the pharmacology of heparin and its derivatives, and the pathophysiology of HIT. Guidance on laboratory testing for and clinical management of HIT is presented in accordance with international guidelines. There are important similarities and differences between HIT and the new entity of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, also known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which clinicians need to be aware of.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Heparin/adverse effects , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Heparin/administration & dosage , Humans , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Thrombocytopenia/physiopathology
12.
Viruses ; 13(9)2021 08 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: According to recent guidelines, all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), unless there are specific contraindications. However, the optimal preventive strategy in terms of intensity of anticoagulation for these patients is not well established. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of individualized regimens of enoxaparin on the development of VTE and on the risk of major bleeding complications during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted to the medical wards of six Italian hospitals between 15 September and 15 October 2020 with COVID-19 infection of moderate severity were administered enoxaparin in subcutaneous daily doses adjusted to the Padua Prediction Score stratification model: No heparin in patients scoring less than 4, 4000 IU daily in those scoring 4, 6000 IU in those scoring 5, and 8000 in those scoring six or more. Objective tests were performed in patients developing clinical symptoms of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding complications were defined according to the ISTH classification. RESULTS: From the 154 eligible patients, enoxaparin was administered in all: 4000 IU in 73 patients, 6000 IU in 53, and 8000 IU in the remaining 28. During the course of hospitalization, 27 patients (17.5%) died. VTE developed in 14 of the 154 patients (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.6% to 13.6%), and was fatal in 1. Major bleeding complications developed in 35 patients (22.7%; 95% CI, 16.1% to 29.3%), and were fatal in 8. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of risk-adjusted doses of enoxaparin, the rate of VTE events was consistent with that reported in contemporary studies where fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was used. The unexpectedly high risk of bleeding complications should induce caution in administering enoxaparin in doses higher than the conventional low ones.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Heparin/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Hemorrhage/etiology , Heparin/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Prognosis , Treatment Outcome
13.
Cardiovasc Diabetol ; 20(1): 176, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388767

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain if prior use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outpatients with multimorbidity impacts prognosis, especially if cardiometabolic diseases are present. Clinical outcomes 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis were compared between outpatients with cardiometabolic disease receiving vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct-acting OAC (DOAC) therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: A study was conducted using TriNetX, a global federated health research network. Adult outpatients with cardiometabolic disease (i.e. diabetes mellitus and any disease of the circulatory system) treated with VKAs or DOACs at time of COVID-19 diagnosis between 20-Jan-2020 and 15-Feb-2021 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance cohorts receiving VKAs and DOACs. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation (MV) necessity, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH)/gastrointestinal bleeding, and the composite of any arterial or venous thrombotic event(s) at 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: 2275 patients were included. After PSM, 1270 patients remained in the study (635 on VKAs; 635 on DOACs). VKA-treated patients had similar risks and 30-day event-free survival than patients on DOACs regarding all-cause mortality, ICU admission/MV necessity, and ICH/gastrointestinal bleeding. The risk of any arterial or venous thrombotic event was 43% higher in the VKA cohort (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.98; Log-Rank test p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 outpatients with cardiometabolic diseases, prior use of DOAC therapy compared to VKA therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis demonstrated lower risk of arterial or venous thrombotic outcomes, without increasing the risk of bleeding.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/methods , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heart Diseases/drug therapy , Metabolic Diseases/drug therapy , Vitamin K/antagonists & inhibitors , Administration, Oral , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Heart Diseases/diagnosis , Heart Diseases/mortality , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/trends , Male , Metabolic Diseases/diagnosis , Metabolic Diseases/mortality , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Treatment Outcome
14.
Bratisl Lek Listy ; 122(9): 626-630, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1380028

ABSTRACT

NTRODUCTION: Anticoagulant treatment approach in patients with COVID-19 is not well studied and not standardized. We aimed to compare the effects of standard prophylactic and pre-emptive therapeutic Low-Molecular-weight Heparin (LMWH) treatment approaches on mortality in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective and single-centre study includes patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with LMWH during the hospital stay. Therapeutic dose of LMWH was defined as 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily and prophylactic dose of LMWH was defined as 40 mg subcutaneously once daily. RESULTS: Among the 336 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, 115 patients, who received LMWH were included in the study. The mean age was 58.6 ± 13.3 and 58 (50.4 %) of the patients were male. Sixty-nine (60 %) of the patients were treated with prophylactic and 46 (40 %) therapeutic LMWH.In-hospital mortality was not different between patients treated therapeutic LMWH and prophylactic LMWH by the multivariate regression analysis (OR=2.187, 95% CI 0.484-9.880, p=0.309) and the propensity score modelling (OR=1.586, 95% CI 0.400-6.289, p=0.512.)CONCLUSION: Clinicians should consider the potential risks and benefits of standard prophylactic and pre-emptive therapeutic LMWH. Therefore, anticoagulant therapy should be individualized in patients with COVID-19 (Tab. 3, Ref. 28).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
15.
N Engl J Med ; 385(7): 609-617, 2021 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354155

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of factor XI in the pathogenesis of postoperative venous thromboembolism is uncertain. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to factor XI and locks it in the zymogen (inactive precursor) conformation. METHODS: In this open-label, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 412 patients who were undergoing total knee arthroplasty to receive one of three regimens of abelacimab (30 mg, 75 mg, or 150 mg) administered postoperatively in a single intravenous dose or to receive 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously once daily. The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism, detected by mandatory venography of the leg involved in the operation or objective confirmation of symptomatic events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding up to 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Venous thromboembolism occurred in 13 of 102 patients (13%) in the 30-mg abelacimab group, 5 of 99 patients (5%) in the 75-mg abelacimab group, and 4 of 98 patients (4%) in the 150-mg abelacimab group, as compared with 22 of 101 patients (22%) in the enoxaparin group. The 30-mg abelacimab regimen was noninferior to enoxaparin, and the 75-mg and 150-mg abelacimab regimens were superior to enoxaparin (P<0.001). Bleeding occurred in 2%, 2%, and none of the patients in the 30-mg, 75-mg, and 150-mg abelacimab groups, respectively, and in none of the patients in the enoxaparin group. CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that factor XI is important for the development of postoperative venous thromboembolism. Factor XI inhibition with a single intravenous dose of abelacimab after total knee arthroplasty was effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism and was associated with a low risk of bleeding. (Funded by Anthos Therapeutics; ANT-005 TKA EudraCT number, 2019-003756-37.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Factor XI/antagonists & inhibitors , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Factor XI/metabolism , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Injections, Subcutaneous , Male , Middle Aged , Partial Thromboplastin Time
16.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 790-802, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
17.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 777-789, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...