Safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation versus therapeutic anticoagulation in hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disease-related coagulopathy and thromboembolic complication, an important aspect of the disease pathophysiology, are frequent and associated with poor outcomes, particularly significant in hospitalized patients. Undoubtedly, anticoagulation forms a cornerstone for the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the appropriate dosing has been inconclusive and a subject of research. We aim to review existing literature and compare safety and efficacy outcomes of prophylactic and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in such patients. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic dose anticoagulation when compared with therapeutic dosing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases from 2019 to 2021, without any restriction by language. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. RCTs that directly compare therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulants dosing and are not placebo-controlled trials were included. Analyses of data were conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird analysis). The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265948). RESULTS: We included three studies in the final quantitative analysis. The incidence of thromboembolic events in therapeutic anticoagulation was lower in comparison with prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and reached statistical significance [RR 1·45, 95% CI (1.07, 1.97) I2 -0%], whereas major bleeding as an adverse event was found lower in prophylactic anticoagulation in comparison with therapeutic anticoagulation that was statistically significant [RR 0·42, 95% CI(0.19, 0.93) I2 -0%]. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that therapeutic dose anticoagulation is more effective in preventing thromboembolic events than prophylactic dose but significantly increases the risk of major bleeding as an adverse event. So, the risk-benefit ratio must be considered while using either of them.

IVIG plus Glucocorticoids versus IVIG Alone in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Associated with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: There is limited information available regarding the management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with SARS-CoV-2. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the optimal treatment using IVIG alone versus IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched along with other secondary searches. Studies published within the time frame of January 2020 to August 2021 were included. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using NOS. Studies that directly compare the two treatment groups were included. Analyses were conducted using the random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird analysis) if I 2 > 50% and fixed-effects model was used if I 2 < 50%. Results: We included three studies in the final quantitative analysis. The initial therapy with the IVIG plus glucocorticoids group significantly lowered the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.57, 95% CI (0.42, 0.79), I 2 45.36%) and the need for adjunctive immunomodulatory therapy (OR 0.27, 95% CI (0.20, 0.37), I 2 0.0%). The combination therapy showed no significant reduction in occurrence of left ventricular dysfunction (OR 0.79, 95% CI (0.34, 1.87), I 2 58.44%) and the need for inotropic support (OR 0.83, 95% CI (0.35, 1.99), I 2 75.40%). Conclusion: This study supports the use of IVIG with glucocorticoids compared to IVIG alone, as the combination therapy significantly lowered the risk of treatment failure and the need for adjunctive immunomodulatory therapy.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Can We Compare Direct Oral Anticoagulants to Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bio-Prosthetic Valves?

Background There are no clear consensus guidelines on the indications and types of anticoagulation therapies in patients with bio-prosthetic valves either with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus rhythm. In our meta-analysis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of DOACs as compared to the standard treatment with warfarin in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies in the English language, and studies reporting patients with valvular heart disease that included bioprosthetic valvular disease. A systematic literature review using Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science was performed using the terms "Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant," "Oral Anticoagulants," "Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant," "Atrial Fibrillation," "Bioprosthetic Valve" for literature published prior to January 2021. Extraction of data from included studies was carried out independently by three reviewers from Covidence. We assessed the methodical rigor of the included studies using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results Four RCTs and one observational study (n=1776) were included in our study. A random-effect model using RevMan (version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for data analysis. The pooled data showed that there was a non-significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism in the patients taking DOACs as compared to warfarin (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.29, 1.67; I2 = 50%). The incidence of major bleeding was lower in the DOACs group; the difference was statistically significant (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.67; I2 = 7%). The difference was not statistically significant for all-cause mortality in both groups (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.91, 1.67; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Our results showed that there was no difference in the outcomes of stroke and systemic embolism between DOACs and warfarin but there were statistically significantly lower major bleeding events. We conclude that larger clinical trials are needed to assess the true safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves.