A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of primary thromboprophylaxis in acute lymphoblastic leukemia during early-phase therapy including asparaginase or its prolonged form.

Asparaginase is essential in the initial management of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but frequently leads to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Using anticoagulants for primary VTE prevention has been studied with no consensus. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of science and performed random-effect meta-analysis using Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.4 to analyze primary pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during asparaginase treatment in early-phase (induction, consolidation, or intensification phase) therapy in patients with ALL with all ages and followed with subgroup analysis by age. Meta-analysis of 13 articles describing the effect of antithrombin supplementation in 1375 patients showed that antithrombin prophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE by 43% (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38 - 0.83; p=0.004), with mild heterogeneity (I2=35%, p=0.10) and moderate certainty by GRADE. 8 articles included for meta-analysis of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment in 612 patients showed that it decreased the risk of VTE by nearly 40% (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 - 0.81; p=0.00081), with minimal heterogeneity (I2=14%, p=0.31) but low certainty. Subgroup analysis showed that only prophylaxis with antithrombin supplementation significantly decreased the VTE rate in adult patients with moderate certainty. In pediatric patients, one nonrandomized prospective study showed that LMWH combined with antithrombin has a better thromboprophylaxis effect than antithrombin alone. In the PREVAPIX-ALL trial, prophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitor Apixaban did not benefit children younger than 18 years except for cases of obesity. We concluded that thromboprophylaxis with antithrombin is effective in ALL patients older than 18 years during the early phase of therapy, and LMWH combined with antithrombin supplementation might be effective for pediatric patients with ALL. Apixaban is effective in pediatric ALL patients with obesity and needs further study in other high-risk patients.

Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results. RESULTS: The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.

Impact of perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin therapy on clinical events of elderly patients with prior coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the safety and efficacy of discontinuing antiplatelet therapy via LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted for > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This randomized trial was designed to compare the clinical benefits and risks of antiplatelet drug discontinuation via LMWH bridging therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of either dalteparin sodium or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiac or cerebrovascular events. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. RESULTS: Among 2476 randomized patients, the variables (sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, medications, and procedural characteristics) and percutaneous coronary intervention information were not significantly different between the bridging and non-bridging groups. During the follow-up period, the rate of the combined endpoint in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (5.79% vs. 8.42%, p = 0.012). The incidence of myocardial injury in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (3.14% vs. 5.19%, p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis occurred more frequently in the non-bridging group (1.21% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.024), and there was a trend toward a higher rate of pulmonary embolism (0.32% vs. 0.08%, p = 0.177). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of acute myocardial infarction (0.81% vs. 1.38%), cardiac death (0.24% vs. 0.41%), stroke (0.16% vs. 0.24%), or major bleeding (1.22% vs. 1.45%). Multivariable analysis showed that LMWH bridging, creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, preoperative hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of ischemic events. LMWH bridging and a preoperative platelet count of < 70 × 109/L were independent predictors of minor bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the safety and efficacy of perioperative LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An alternative approach might be the use of bridging therapy with half-dose LMWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65203415.

Weight-Based Dosing for Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (Enoxaparin) Administration to Achieve Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients admitted after traumatic injuries are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly used to prevent VTE in this patient population; however, the optimal dosing strategy has yet to be determined. To address this question, a fixed-dosing strategy of LMWH was compared to a weight-based dosing strategy of LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective, pre-post implementation cohort study compared a fixed vs a weight-based dosing strategy of LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. Patients admitted to our level 1 trauma center were included if they had an estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 mL/min/1.73 m2, received at least 3 doses of LMWH, and had an appropriately drawn anti-Xa level on their initial dosing regimen. Patients in the pre-cohort received 30 mg LMWH subcutaneously twice daily as the initial dosing regimen. Patients in the post-cohort received .5 mg/kg (max 60 mg) LMWH subcutaneously every 12 h as the initial dosing regimen. A goal anti-Xa of .2-.4 IU/mL was targeted for prophylaxis. RESULTS: There were 817 patients in the fixed-dosing group (FDG) and 874 patients in the weight-based dosing group (WBDG). In the FDG, 42.8% of the patients achieved the goal initial anti-Xa level, with 54.1% and 3.1% reaching sub- and supratherapeutic doses, respectively. In the WBDG, 66.5% of patients reached goal initial anti-Xa levels, with 23.5% and 10.1% at sub- and supratherapeutic levels. The distribution of dose ranges was significantly different between the dosing strategies (P-value <.001). There was no difference in the number of patients who received blood products (39.1% vs 41.7%. P-value = .299). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, weight-based dosing of LMWH yielded a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved goal prophylactic anti-Xa levels than fixed-dosing of LMWH. Larger-scale studies are needed to assess the risk of VTE events and bleeding with these dosing strategies.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

How can Secondary Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Pregnant Patients be Improved?

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is suggested for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women with previous venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anyway, there is only limited amount of studies evaluating the effect of LMWH on hemostatic parameters during pregnancy of patients with previous VTE and the need of secondary thromboprophylaxis. We therefore provide results of prospective and longitudinal assessment of changes in hemostasis in high-risk pregnant women at four times during pregnancy (T1-T4) and one time after the postpartum period (T5) used for individualized modification of thromboprophylaxis. In this study, the results of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) and protein S (PS) activity, ProC Global ratio and anti-Xa activity were evaluated. Despite the thromboprophylaxis, an increased predisposition to thromboembolic complications was detected (significant increase in FVIII activity and decrease in PS function, ProC Global ratio not normalized even after the postpartum period - p < .0001 between controls and T5 for PS and ProC Global). These results indicate that hemostasis may not be restored even 6 to 8 weeks after delivery and pose the question when is it safe to withdraw the anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients with prior VTE.

Use of direct oral anticoagulants for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic malignancies.

Venous thromboembolism is a preventable cause of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for malignancy. Current standard of care based on international guideline recommends 28 days of extended thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal and pelvic surgery for malignancies with unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. Direct oral anticoagulants have been approved for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in the general population. This regimen has a significant advantage over other types of anticoagulation regimens, particularly being administered by non-parenteral routes and without the need for laboratory monitoring. In this review, we evaluate the role of direct anticoagulation and provide an update on completed and ongoing clinical trials.

Dual mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases risk of pulmonary embolus after laparotomy for gynecologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with gynecologic malignancies have high rates of post-operative venous thromboembolism. Currently, there is no consensus for peri-operative thromboprophylaxis specific to gynecologic oncology. We aimed to compare rates of symptomatic pulmonary embolus within 30 days post-operatively, and to identify risk factors for pulmonary embolus. METHODS: The Division of Gynecologic Oncology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre implemented dual thromboprophylaxis for laparotomies in December 2017. We conducted a prospective study of laparotomies for gynecologic malignancies from December 2017 to October 2018, with comparison to historical cohort from January 2016 to November 2017 using the institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP). Pre-intervention, patients received low molecular weight heparin during admission and extended 28-day prophylaxis was continued at the surgeon's discretion. Post-intervention, all patients received both mechanical thromboprophylaxis with sequential compression devices during admission and 28-day prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin. RESULTS: There were 371 and 163 laparotomies pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Patient characteristics (age, body mass index, diabetes, smoking, tumor stage), rate of malignant cases, operative blood loss and duration, and length of stay were similar between groups. After implementation, pulmonary emboli rates decreased from 5.1% to 0% (p=0.001). There were more cytoreductive procedures pre-intervention (p≤0.0001) but surgical complexity scores were similar (p=0.82). Univariate analysis revealed that surgery pre-intervention (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.04 to 17.43, p=0.04), length of stay ≥5 days (OR 11.94, 95% CI 2.65 to 53.92, p=0.002), and operative blood loss ≥500 mL (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.8, p=0.04) increased risk of pulmonary embolus. On multivariable analysis, surgery pre-intervention remained associated with more pulmonary emboli (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 16.79, p=0.045), when adjusting for operative blood loss. CONCLUSION: Dual thromboprophylaxis after laparotomy significantly reduced rates of pulmonary embolus in this high-risk patient population.

Evaluating compliance of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following abdominopelvic surgery for cancer: A multidisciplinary quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite quality evidence supporting postoperative extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (eVTEp) following abdominopelvic cancer surgery, baseline use of eVTEp at our institution was 3%. Our project aim was to improve the proportion of patients prescribed eVTEp following surgery for gynecologic, hepatobiliary, and colorectal cancers by a 30% absolute increase. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series study using quality improvement methodology. Postoperative order sets, pre-printed prescriptions, process checklists, and multimodal education were introduced. Process and outcome data were collected and analyzed on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: We included 324 patients with gynecologic and hepatobiliary cancers. Despite efforts to include them, the colorectal team did not participate. The monthly mean order set-use was 58% (SD = 14%), by specialty: gynecology 79%, hepatobiliary 47%. The proportion of patients prescribed eVTEp increased from 3% to 70% (SD = 14%). The target goal was surpassed and sustained by both cohorts. Patient compliance was 73% (n = 117/160, SD = 16%). Of those who stopped eVTEp early, 45% (n = 14/31) objected because of the injectable nature. Bleeding events were infrequent (0.6%, n = 2/324). CONCLUSIONS: Three process changes and multimodal education resulted in a significant increase in eVTEp use. Failure to identify improvement champions limited project expansion to colorectal patients. Patient compliance was largely limited by the injectable nature of the medication.

Early Chemoprophylaxis Against Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Timing to start of chemoprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. We hypothesize that early administration is not associated with increased intracranial hemorrhage. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients with TBI following blunt injury was performed. Patients with penetrating brain injury, any moderate/severe organ injury other than the brain, need for craniotomy/craniectomy, death within 24 hours of admission, or progression of bleed on 6 hour follow-up head computed tomography scan were excluded. Patients were divided into early (≤24 hours) and late (>24 hours) cohorts based on time to initiation of chemoprophylaxis. Progression of bleed was the primary outcome. RESULTS: 264 patients were enrolled, 40% of whom were in the early cohort. The average time to VTE prophylaxis initiation was 17 hours and 47 hours in the early and late groups, respectively (P < .0001). There was no difference in progression of bleed (5.6% vs. 7%, P = .67), craniectomy/-craniotomy rate (1.9% vs. 2.5%, P = .81), or VTE rate (0% vs. 2.5%, P = .1). CONCLUSION: Early chemoprophylaxis is not associated with progression of hemorrhage or need for neurosurgical intervention in patients with TBI and a stable head CT 7 hours following injury.

Mechanisms of COVID-19-induced kidney injury and current pharmacotherapies.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a worldwide debilitating health crisis with the entire humanity suffering from the deleterious effects associated with the high infectivity and mortality rates. While significant evidence is currently available online and targets various aspects of the disease, both inflammatory and noninflammatory kidney manifestations secondary to COVID-19 infection are still largely underrepresented. In this review, we summarized current knowledge about COVID-19-related kidney manifestations, their pathologic mechanisms as well as various pharmacotherapies used to treat patients with COVID-19. We also shed light on the effect of these medications on kidney functions that can further enhance renal damage secondary to the illness.

The therapeutic efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine injection combined with low-molecular-weight heparin on the acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT) of lower extremities is one of the common clinical diseases. Lack of a timely treatment in the acute stage easily causes pulmonary embolism, thus seriously threatening patients' life. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), as a new generation of heparin-based anticoagulant and antithrombotic drug, is now commonly used in the clinical treatment of acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (ALEDVT). Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Traditional Chinese medicine injection (TCMJ) combined with LMWH on ALDVT, although their conclusions remain controversial. In addition, the efficacy of various TCMJs has rarely been analyzed and compared. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of TCMJ combined with LMWH on ALEDVT through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: RCTs reporting TCMJ combined with LMWH and LMWH along for the treatment of ALEDVT published before November 2021 will be searched in online databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure. Two investigators will be independently responsible for literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation according to Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. R software will be used to perform a network Meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This study will provide high-quality, evidence-based medical evidence for comparing the therapeutic efficacy and safety of TCMJ combined with LMWH and LMWH alone on ALEDVT.

PICO Questions and DELPHI Methodology for the Management of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with COVID-19.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a higher risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) than patients with other infectious or inflammatory diseases, both as macrothrombosis (pulmonar embolism and deep vein thrombosis) or microthrombosis. However, the use of anticoagulation in this scenario remains controversial. This is a project that used DELPHI methodology to answer PICO questions related to anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. The objective was to reach a consensus among multidisciplinary VTE experts providing answers to those PICO questions. Seven PICO questions regarding patients with COVID-19 responded with a broad consensus: 1. It is recommended to avoid pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in most COVID-19 patients not requiring hospital admission; 2. In most hospitalized patients for COVID-19 who are receiving oral anticoagulants before admission, it is recommended to replace them by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at therapeutic doses; 3. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH at standard doses is suggested for COVID-19 patients admitted to a conventional hospital ward; 4. Standard-doses thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring admission to Intensive Care Unit; 5. It is recommended not to determine D-Dimer levels routinely in COVID-19 hospitalized patients to select those in whom VTE should be suspected, or as a part of the diagnostic algorithm to rule out or confirm a VTE event; 6. It is recommended to discontinue pharmacological thromboprophylaxis at discharge in most patients hospitalized for COVID-19; 7. It is recommended to withdraw anticoagulant treatment after 3 months in most patients with a VTE event associated with COVID-19. The combination of PICO questions and DELPHI methodology provides a consensus on different recommendations for anticoagulation management in patients with COVID-19.

Anticoagulation for COVID-19 Patients: A Bird's-Eye View.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions: Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Microneedle based transcutaneous delivery of low molecular weight heparin.

This study aimed to fabricate and characterize polymeric microneedle patches for rapid and non-invasive administration of enoxaparin across skin layers. The patches comprising of PVA, sorbitol and enoxaparin sodium were prepared by employing micromolding technique. Formulated patches were characterized physicochemically by folding endurance, dimensional analysis and swelling study, morphologically by optical and scanning electron microscopy and thermally by thermogravimetric analysis. Moreover, performance efficiency of prepared polymeric device was analyzed by in-vitro drug release study and piercing ability. Prepared patches showed appropriate dimensions and folding endurance (i.e., ~1100) indicating satisfactory integrity of polymeric device. Patches exhibited appropriately distanced needles with pointed tips in optical and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Thermogravimetric analysis proved thermal stability of formulation ingredients and prepared patches. Swelling percentage was >110 % suggesting that prepared formulation would allow penetration of physiological fluids in its polymeric network. Maximum (~89%) drug was released within ~2 hours during in-vitro release study. In-vitro piercing ability experiments suggested that prepared patches successfully breached skin barrier stratum corneum. It is concluded that prepared microneedle device can serve as a potential alternative of currently employed invasive parenteral route for rapid and efficient administration of enoxaparin sodium in the systemic circulation.

Meta-analysis of Different Pressing Time on the Incidence of Subcutaneous Hemorrhage of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Administration.

To investigate the effect of different pressing time on the incidence of subcutaneous hemorrhage of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) administration by meta-analysis. Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMbase, Springer, EBSCO, China Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP Database were searched. To screen the literature of randomized controlled trials with different pressing time in patients with subcutaneous LMWH injection from the establishment of the database to December 2020. The quality of the literature was evaluated and the data were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis showed that the bleeding rate of pressing for 5 min odds ratio (OR = 3.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.68-5.64, P < .05) or pressing for 10 min (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.34-2.95) was significantly lower than that of pressing for 3 min. Moreover, the bleeding rate was significantly lower in the 5 min pressing (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.18-1.82) and 10 min pressing(OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.61-2.77) than in the no compression group. It is the most suitable time to press 5 min after subcutaneous LMWH injection, which can better control the incidence of bleeding.

[Superficial Vein Thrombosis]. / Oberflächliche Venenthrombose.

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS: A large German registry on superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) documents that risk profiles, clinical presentation and treatment patterns are highly variable in patients with SVT, including a large variation in anticoagulation treatment modalities, intensities and durations. Inspite of a high percentage of initial anticoagulation there is a substantial risk of subsequent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrences or extension after three months. Inspite of current guideline recommendations, one third of the patients receives heparins, oral anticoagulants or no anticoagulation at all. At initial presentation about one quarter of the patients with SVT have a concomitant, frequently asymptomatic VTE. Risk factors for this complication include prior hospitalization, immobilization, prior VTE, autoimmune disorders, higher age, cancer and SVT occurring in a non-varicose veins or SVT-extension into the perforator veins. These risk factors are also associated with thromboembolic complications during follow-up. TREATMENT: Based on a large placebo-controlled trial with clinical endpoints (The CALISTO-Study), guidelines recommend Fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily administered over 4 to 6 weeks. Alternatively, an intermediate dose of low molecular weight heparin can be considered. In high-risk patients, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily was noninferior compared to Fondaparinux. A rebound of VTE recurrences was observed in both study arms after treatment had been discontinued after 45 days. Further studies are required to determine whether treatment needs to be extended beyond 45 days in high-risk patients.