Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 321
Filter
1.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther ; 28: 10742484221145010, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20233025

ABSTRACT

Fondaparinux sodium is a chemically synthesized selective factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events, that is, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and superficial vein thrombosis, in acutely ill (including those affected by COVID-19 or cancer patients) and those undergoing surgeries. Since its approval in 2002, the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux is well demonstrated by many clinical studies, establishing the value of fondaparinux in clinical practice. Some of the advantages with fondaparinux are its chemical nature of synthesis, minimal risk of contamination, 100% absolute bioavailability subcutaneously, instant onset of action, a long half-life, direct renal excretion, fewer adverse reactions when compared with direct oral anticoagulants, and being an ideal alternative in conditions where oral anticoagulants are not approved for use or in patients intolerant to low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). In the last decade, the real-world use of fondaparinux has been explored in other conditions such as acute coronary syndromes, bariatric surgery, in patients developing vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and in pregnant women with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or those intolerant to LMWH. The emerging data from these studies have culminated in recent updates in the guidelines that recommend the use of fondaparinux under various conditions. This paper aims to review the recent data and the subsequent updates in the recommendations of various guidelines on the use of fondaparinux sodium.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Venous Thrombosis , Pregnancy , Humans , Female , Fondaparinux/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Polysaccharides/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Heparin
2.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 56(2): 241-252, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2325921

ABSTRACT

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) occurs in approximately 3% of patients receiving heparinoids. About 30-75% of patients with type 2 of HIT develop thrombosis as a result of platelet activation. The most important clinical symptom is thrombocytopenia. Patients with severe COVID-19 are among those receiving heparinoids. This meta-analysis performed to picture the current knowledge and results of published studies in this field. Three search engines were searched and 575 papers were found. After evaluation, 37 articles were finally selected of which 13 studies were quantitatively analyzed. The pooled frequency rate of suspected cases with HIT in 13 studies with 11,241 patients was 1.7%. The frequency of HIT was 8.2% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation subgroup with 268 patients and 0.8% in the hospitalization subgroup with 10,887 patients. The coincidence of these two conditions may increase the risk of thrombosis. Of the 37 patients with COVID-19 and confirmed HIT, 30 patients (81%) were treated in the intensive care unit or had severe COVID-19. The most commonly used anticoagulants were UFH in 22 cases (59.4%). The median platelet count before treatment was 237 (176-290) x 103/µl and the median nadir platelet count was 52 (31-90.5) x 103/µl.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparinoids , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparinoids/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Thrombosis/etiology
3.
Methods Mol Biol ; 2663: 463-477, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2324173

ABSTRACT

The serotonin release assay (SRA) has been the gold-standard assay for detection of heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies and integral for the diagnosis for heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (HIT). In 2021, a thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome was reported after adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccination. This vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome (VITT) proved to be a severe immune platelet activation syndrome manifested by unusual thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, very elevated plasma D-dimer, and a high mortality even with aggressive therapy (anticoagulation and plasma exchange). While the platelet-activating antibodies in both HIT and VITT are directed toward platelet factor 4 (PF4), important differences have been found. These differences have required modifications to the SRA to improve detection of functional VITT antibodies. Functional platelet activation assays remain essential in the diagnostic workup of HIT and VITT. Here we detail the application of SRA for the assessment of HIT and VITT antibodies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Serotonin , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Antibodies , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/etiology , Platelet Factor 4/adverse effects
4.
Circulation ; 147(25): 1891-1901, 2023 06 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318184

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Humans , Rivaroxaban/adverse effects , Outpatients , Thrombosis/epidemiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Anticoagulants/adverse effects
5.
Int J Stroke ; 18(4): 383-391, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317287

ABSTRACT

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a prothrombotic autoimmune disease with heterogeneous clinicopathological manifestations and is a well-established cause of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA), particularly in younger patients. There is growing recognition of a wider spectrum of APS-associated cerebrovascular lesions, including white matter hyperintensities, cortical atrophy, and infarcts, which may have clinically important neurocognitive sequalae. Diagnosis of APS-associated AIS/TIA requires expert review of clinical and laboratory information. Management poses challenges, given the potential for substantial morbidity and recurrent thrombosis, additional risk conferred by conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and limited evidence base regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention. In this review, we summarize key features of APS-associated cerebrovascular disorders, with focus on clinical and laboratory aspects of diagnostic evaluation. The current status of prognostic markers is considered. We review the evidence base for antithrombotic treatment in APS-associated stroke and discuss uncertainties, including the optimal intensity of anticoagulation and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants. Clinical practice recommendations are provided, covering antithrombotic treatment, supportive management, and options for anticoagulant-refractory cases, and we highlight the benefits of adopting a considered, multidisciplinary team approach.


Subject(s)
Antiphospholipid Syndrome , Ischemic Attack, Transient , Ischemic Stroke , Stroke , Humans , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/complications , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/diagnosis , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/drug therapy , Stroke/drug therapy , Ischemic Stroke/drug therapy , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Ischemic Attack, Transient/complications , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/adverse effects
6.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 29: 10760296231164355, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319882

ABSTRACT

A high rate of thromboembolism and a high risk of death have been reported regarding hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we noticed that clinicians in some comparative studies used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether DOACs are better than recommended heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, a direct comparison of the prophylactic effects and safety between DOACs and heparin is needed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to December 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing the efficacy or safety of DOACs with that of heparin in preventing thromboembolism for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. We assessed endpoints and publication bias using Stata 14.0. Five studies comprising 1360 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate cases were identified in the databases. Comparing the embolism incidence, we found that DOACs had a better effect than heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), in preventing thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43-0.91], P = 0.014). Considering safety, DOACs resulted in less bleeding than heparin during hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.11-2.44], P = 0.411). Similar mortality was discovered in the 2 groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59-1.51], P = 0.797). In noncritically hospitalized patients with COVID-19, DOACs are superior to heparin, even LMWH, in preventing thromboembolism. Compared with heparin, DOACs have a lower trend of bleeding and yield a similar mortality rate. Therefore, DOACs may be a better alternative for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Neoplasms/complications
8.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 39(6): 811-817, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2313486

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical profile, risk of complications and impact of anticoagulation in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, according to the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, and observational study that consecutively included patients >55 years admitted with COVID-19 from March to October 2020. In AF patients, anticoagulation was chosen based on clinicians' judgment. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were included, of whom 75.2% had AF. Overall, mean age was 75 ± 9.1 years and 62.4% were male. Patients with AF were older and had more comorbidities. The most common anticoagulants used during hospitalization in patients with AF were edoxaban (47.9%), low molecular weight heparin (27.0%), and dabigatran (11.7%) and among patients without AF, these numbers were 0%, 93.8% and 0%. Overall, during the study period (68 ± 3 days), 15.2% of patients died, 8.2% of patients presented a major bleeding and 0.9% had a stroke/systemic embolism. During hospitalization, patients with AF had a higher risk of major bleeding (11.3% vs 0.7%; p < .01), COVID-19-related deaths (18.0% vs 4.5%; p = .02), and all-cause deaths (20.6% vs 5.6%; p = .02). Age (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3) and elevated transaminases (HR 3.5; 95% CI 2.0-6.1) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. AF was independently associated with major bleeding (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients with AF were older, had more comorbidities and had a higher risk of major bleeding. Age and elevated transaminases during hospitalization, but not AF nor anticoagulant treatment increased the risk of all-cause death.


Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , COVID-19 , Stroke , Thromboembolism , Humans , Male , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/complications , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Hemorrhage/complications , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Stroke/etiology , Registries , Transaminases/therapeutic use
9.
Int J Cardiol ; 383: 75-81, 2023 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2308603

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute infections cause relevant activation of innate immunity and inflammatory cascade. An excessive response against pathogens has been proved to trigger the pathophysiological process of thrombo-inflammation. Nevertheless, an association between the use of antithrombotic agents and the outcome of critically ill patients with infectious diseases is lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the impact of antithrombotic treatment on survival of patients with acute infective disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any antithrombotic agent in patients with infectious diseases other than COVID-19. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias evaluation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Summary estimates for mortality were calculated using the inverse-variance random-effects method. RESULTS: A total of 16,588 patients participating in 18 RCTs were included, of whom 2141 died. Four trials evaluated therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, 1 trial prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, 4 trials aspirin, and 9 trials other antithrombotic agents. Overall, the use of antithrombotic agents was not associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The use of antithrombotics is not associated with all-cause mortality in patients with infectious disease other than COVID-19. Complex pathophysiological interplays between inflammatory and thrombotic pathways may explain these results and need further investigation. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021241182.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fibrinolytic Agents , Humans , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Aspirin , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
10.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 81(18): 1747-1762, 2023 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2304226

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group. RESULTS: Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thromboembolism , Humans , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Thromboembolism/chemically induced
11.
Artif Organs ; 46(12): 2371-2381, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2279662

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents an advanced option for supporting refractory respiratory and/or cardiac failure. Systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) is routinely used. However, patients with bleeding risk and/or heparin-related side effects may necessitate alternative strategies: among these, nafamostat mesilate (NM) has been reported. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed and EMBASE, updated 12/08/2021), including all studies reporting NM anticoagulation for ECMO. We focused on reasons for starting NM, its dose and the anticoagulation monitoring approach, the incidence of bleeding/thrombosis complications, the NM-related side effects, ECMO weaning, and mortality. RESULTS: The search revealed 11 relevant findings, all with retrospective design. Of these, three large studies reported a control group receiving UFH, the other were case series (n = 3) or case reports (n = 5). The main reason reported for NM use was an ongoing or high risk of bleeding. The NM dose varied largely as did the anticoagulation monitoring approach. The average NM dose ranged from 0.46 to 0.67 mg/kg/h, but two groups of authors reported larger doses when monitoring anticoagulation with ACT. Conflicting findings were found on bleeding and thrombosis. The only NM-related side effect was hyperkalemia (n = 2 studies) with an incidence of 15%-18% in patients anticoagulated with NM. Weaning and survival varied across studies. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation with NM in ECMO has not been prospectively studied. While several centers have experience with this approach in high-risk patients, prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal space of this approach in ECMO.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Thrombosis , Humans , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Heparin/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Hemorrhage/etiology , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Thrombosis/drug therapy
12.
Transplantation ; 106(11): 2143-2154, 2022 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2278350

ABSTRACT

Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has increased dramatically since their introduction because of the growing evidence of proven efficacy and enhanced safety compared with warfarin and the low-molecular-weight heparins in the general population. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of quality data regarding the safety and efficacy of the DOACs in patients awaiting organ transplant and those who received a solid organ transplant. This review aims to evaluate the available literature and considerations regarding anticoagulation use in transplant recipients, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative DOAC use.


Subject(s)
Organ Transplantation , Warfarin , Humans , Factor Xa Inhibitors , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Administration, Oral , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
13.
J Atheroscler Thromb ; 30(4): 311-320, 2023 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2287418

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major health problem worldwide since 2020. Although the main pathophysiology of COVID-19 is a respiratory infectious disease, it could also cause cardiovascular complications, including thrombosis. Thus, anticoagulation therapy has been thought to help prevent thrombosis, leading to improved survival. However, to date, several aspects of the optimal anticoagulation strategies for COVID-19 remain unclear. Considering the status of COVID-19-related thrombosis and some domestic issues in Japan, the optimal anticoagulation strategies for COVID-19 might have to be based on Japanese domestic clinical data considering racial difference. Racial disparities in terms of thromboembolic risk have been well known in the pre-COVID-19 era, and the risk of COVID-19-associated thrombosis depending on race could be an important issue. Considering a potential higher risk of bleeding with anticoagulation therapy in the Asian population, it might be important to maintain a good balance between the risks of thrombosis and bleeding. Latest evidences of COVID-19-related thrombosis and anticoagulation strategies, including some domestic issues in Japan, showed a different status of COVID-19-related thrombosis in Japan from that in Western countries, suggesting the potential benefit of different anticoagulation strategies, specifically for the Japanese population. Although these insights could be useful for the consideration of anticoagulation strategies for the Japanese population, the final decision should be based on balancing the benefits and risks of anticoagulation therapy in each patient.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants , COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Humans , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , East Asian People , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Thrombosis/drug therapy
14.
JAMA ; 329(1): 39-51, 2023 01 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2287001

ABSTRACT

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Follow-Up Studies , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Critical Illness/therapy , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19 Serotherapy , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Receptors, Interleukin-6
15.
Ann Intern Med ; 176(4): 515-523, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2286161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Hemorrhage , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy
17.
Tokai J Exp Clin Med ; 48(1): 47-51, 2023 Apr 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274778

ABSTRACT

We report a case of retroperitoneal hematoma during prophylactic heparin therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A 79-year-old man was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia with possible exacerbation of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonia. He received a prophylactic dose of subcutaneous heparin therapy, methylprednisolone pulse therapy and Intravenous remdesivir but developed a spontaneous iliopsoas muscle hematoma, and transcatheter arterial embolization was performed. Even with a prophylactic dose of subcutaneous heparin therapy, the course should be carefully monitored, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for hemorrhagic complications. Once retroperitoneal hematoma develops, aggressive procedures, such as transcatheter arterial embolization, should be considered to avoid fatal outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Male , Humans , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Heparin/adverse effects , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/drug therapy , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
18.
JAMA Intern Med ; 183(6): 520-531, 2023 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2267740

ABSTRACT

Importance: Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. Objectives: To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. Design, Settings, and Participants: The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). Results: Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Male , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , COVID-19/complications , Heparin/administration & dosage , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Thrombosis/chemically induced , Anticoagulants/adverse effects
19.
Circulation ; 147(11): 897-913, 2023 03 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2261224

ABSTRACT

Therapeutic anticoagulation is indicated for a variety of circumstances and conditions in several fields of medicine to prevent or treat venous and arterial thromboembolism. According to the different mechanisms of action, the available parenteral and oral anticoagulant drugs share the common principle of hampering or blocking key steps of the coagulation cascade, which unavoidably comes at the price of an increased propensity to bleed. Hemorrhagic complications affect patient prognosis both directly and indirectly (ie, by preventing the adoption of an effective antithrombotic strategy). Inhibition of factor XI (FXI) has emerged as a strategy with the potential to uncouple the pharmacological effect and the adverse events of anticoagulant therapy. This observation is based on the differential contribution of FXI to thrombus amplification, in which it plays a major role, and hemostasis, in which it plays an ancillary role in final clot consolidation. Several agents were developed to inhibit FXI at different stages (ie, suppressing biosynthesis, preventing zymogen activation, or impeding the biological action of the active form), including antisense oligonucleotides, monoclonal antibodies, small synthetic molecules, natural peptides, and aptamers. Phase 2 studies of different classes of FXI inhibitors in orthopedic surgery suggested that dose-dependent reductions in thrombotic complications are not paralleled by dose-dependent increases in bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin. Likewise, the FXI inhibitor asundexian was associated with lower rates of bleeding compared with the activated factor X inhibitor apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, although no evidence of a therapeutic effect on stroke prevention is available so far. FXI inhibition could also be appealing for patients with other conditions, including end-stage renal disease, noncardioembolic stroke, or acute myocardial infarction, for which other phase 2 studies have been conducted. The balance between thromboprophylaxis and bleeding achieved by FXI inhibitors needs confirmation in large-scale phase 3 clinical trials powered for clinical end points. Several of such trials are ongoing or planned to define the role of FXI inhibitors in clinical practice and to clarify which FXI inhibitor may be most suited for each clinical indication. This article reviews the rationale, pharmacology, results of medium or small phase 2 studies, and future perspectives of drugs inhibiting FXI.


Subject(s)
Stroke , Thrombosis , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Factor XI , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Hemorrhage/etiology , Stroke/drug therapy
20.
JAMA ; 329(13): 1066-1077, 2023 04 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2260871

ABSTRACT

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Male , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Heparin/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Bayes Theorem , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL