Initial therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic therapy with heparins in moderate to severe COVID-19: results of the COVID-PREVENT randomized controlled trial

Therapeutic Versus Non-Therapeutic Dose Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Abnormal coagulation and thrombotic complications prompted many guidelines to recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but the dose required for prophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review (SR) analyses the safety and efficacy of therapeutic dose anticoagulation (TDA) versus non-therapeutic dose anticoagulation (NDA) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

According to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions, we performed an SR. The protocol is registered in Prospero (CRD42021269197, date 12 August 2021).

Results

In this SR of 18 studies, TDA was shown to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70, 0.99) in COVID-19 infection. TDA also reduced thrombosis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.72) but increased major bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.29, 2.69). A stratified analysis according to severity revealed that, in non-critical patients, TDA resulted in mortality benefit (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67, 0.94). In critical patients, TDA did not affect all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89, 1.18) but reduced thrombosis (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.86) and increased major bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.06, 3.23).

Conclusion

TDA significantly reduced all-cause mortality and thrombosis in non-critical COVID-19 patients at the expense of increased major bleeding. In critical COVID-19, this mortality benefit was not observed.

The Contribution of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps to Coagulopathy in Patients with COVID-19-Related Thrombosis

COVID-19 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is associated with hypercoagulability and increased incidence of thrombotic events. In this study, we investigated the levels of neutrophil extracellular trap biomarkers and von Willebrand factor to assess if these could predict the occurrence of a thrombotic event in COVID-19 patients. We enrolled 202 patients hospitalized with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Of those, 104 patients did not experience any type of thrombotic events before or during their hospitalization. These patients were compared to the other cohort of 98, who experienced thrombotic events before or during their hospitalization. In total, 61 patients who experienced thrombotic events had the event after initial blood collection, so the predictive capacity of biomarkers in these patients was evaluated. Citrullinated histone H3 was the best predictive biomarker for thrombotic events in COVID-19 regardless of age, sex, and race; disease severity was also a significant predictor in most thrombotic event groups. These results may better inform treatment and prophylaxis of thrombotic events in COVID-19 and similar viral illnesses in the future to improve outcomes and reduce mortality.

Immunity and Coagulation in COVID-19

Discovered in late 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has caused the largest pandemic of the 21st century, claiming more than seven million lives. In most cases, the COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is relatively mild and affects only the upper respiratory tract; it most often manifests itself with fever, chills, cough, and sore throat, but also has less-common mild symptoms. In most cases, patients do not require hospitalization, and fully recover. However, in some cases, infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus leads to the development of a severe form of COVID-19, which is characterized by the development of life-threatening complications affecting not only the lungs, but also other organs and systems. In particular, various forms of thrombotic complications are common among patients with a severe form of COVID-19. The mechanisms for the development of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 remain unclear. Accumulated data indicate that the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 is based on disruptions in the functioning of various innate immune systems. The key role in the primary response to a viral infection is assigned to two systems. These are the pattern recognition receptors, primarily members of the toll-like receptor (TLR) family, and the complement system. Both systems are the first to engage in the fight against the virus and launch a whole range of mechanisms aimed at its rapid elimination. Normally, their joint activity leads to the destruction of the pathogen and recovery. However, disruptions in the functioning of these innate immune systems in COVID-19 can cause the development of an excessive inflammatory response that is dangerous for the body. In turn, excessive inflammation entails activation of and damage to the vascular endothelium, as well as the development of the hypercoagulable state observed in patients seriously ill with COVID-19. Activation of the endothelium and hypercoagulation lead to the development of thrombosis and, as a result, damage to organs and tissues. Immune-mediated thrombotic complications are termed "immunothrombosis". In this review, we discuss in detail the features of immunothrombosis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential underlying mechanisms.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin for preventing coagulopathy following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have shown a significant occurrence of thromboembolism and a heightened risk of death. It remains unclear whether factor Xa inhibitors are superior to enoxaparin in this context. Hence, there is a need for a direct comparison to assess the preventive effects and safety of factor Xa inhibitors versus enoxaparin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness or safety of factor Xa inhibitors and enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Embolic incidence, incidence of bleeding, and all-cause mortality were among the outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 percent CIs.

Results

The analysis included six RCTs and two retrospective studies containing 4048 patients. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction among patients on factor Xa inhibitors compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the embolic incidence [risk ratio (RR) 0.64 (95%, CI 0.42, 0.98); P=0.04, I2=12%]. Upon subgroup analysis by type of study design, no significant reductions were noted in patients on factor Xa inhibitors in RCTs (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.33-1.17; P=0.14) or observational studies (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.23-1.26; P=0.15) when compared with enoxaparin Factor Xa inhibitors were not significantly associated with incidence of bleeding [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.36, 1.61); P=0.47, I2=0%] or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.36; P=0.43). Consistent results were obtained upon subgroup analysis by the type of study design.

Conclusion

Factor Xa inhibitors are more effective than enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 who are not acutely ill and are hospitalized. Additional rigorous RCTs comparing factor Xa inhibitors with enoxaparin are warranted.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This report is the second update of our systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard thromboprophylaxis, intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation or no anticoagulation in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. We searched eligible studies up to 5 October 2023. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

For this update we included fourteen new RCTs and a total of 27 RCTs with 16,789 patients. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high depending on outcome and comparison. Standard thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect for COVID-19 outpatients compared to no anticoagulation. In inpatients with moderate or severe COVID-19, intermediate dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic events or death, but may increase major bleeding compared to standard thromboprophylaxis. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation decreases thrombotic events or deaths in inpatients with moderate COVID-19, but probably has little or no effect in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to standard thromboprophylaxis with low or intermediate dose anticoagulation. With therapeutic dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding probably increases regardless of COVID-19 severity. We are uncertain on the effect of thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation in the post-discharge setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized, moderately-ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Appropriate thromboprophylaxis strategy for COVID-19 patients on dosage, antiplatelet therapy, outpatient, and postdischarge prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There was controversy surrounding the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This included debates on the dosage of anticoagulants for thromboembolism prophylaxis, the requirement for additional antiplatelet therapy, and the necessity of prophylaxis for outpatients and postdischarge. To explore this, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 26 July 2023 for studies comparing the effect of different dose of anticoagulation, additional antiplatelet, and postdischarge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of thromboembolism events, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Our study included a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, involving 17 911 patients. Our results revealed that, compared to prophylactic dose, therapeutic dose showed lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.96) but had similar major bleeding risk for critically ill patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, intermediate dose and prophylactic dose demonstrated similar thromboembolism risk and major bleeding risk. For noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic dose of anticoagulants was associated with lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34-0.72) but, at the same time, increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.01; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33). However, intermediate dose showed lower thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21-0.69) while maintaining a similar major bleeding risk. In critically ill patients, additional antiplatelet therapy showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For outpatients, additional prophylactic anticoagulation showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For postdischarge patients, postdischarge prophylaxis reduced thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31-0.76) but increased major bleeding risk (RR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.13-6.14).

CONCLUSION

For noncritically ill patients, therapeutic dose prophylactic anticoagulation significantly reduced venous thromboembolism but increases major bleeding risk. Intermediate dose effectively lowered venous thromboembolism without raising major bleeding risk. The optimal dose and need for additional antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients, as well as the necessity of prophylactic anticoagulation in outpatient and postdischarge patients, required further investigation and confirmation through rigorous evidence studies.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban for anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library electronic databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify all relevant randomized controlled trial studies from December 2019 to July 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 3323 patients, were considered for evaluation. Overall, short-term all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates were not significantly different between the rivaroxaban and control groups. Thrombotic events were significantly reduced in the rivaroxaban prophylaxis group compared to the placebo control group. However, the reduction in thrombotic events was not significantly different between rivaroxaban therapy and heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Rivaroxaban prophylaxis and the therapeutic dose may be associated with a higher rate of overall bleeding rate, but major bleeding rates did not differ substantially.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban may reduce thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients, but it does not appear to have an advantage over heparin or LMWH, and it may increase the risk of bleeding.INPLASY Reg. No.: INPLASY 202370097.

Effect of supervised exercise training on cardiovascular function in patients with intermittent claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This study aimed to determine the effect of supervised exercise training (SET) on cardiovascular function in patients with intermittent claudication (IC). A systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was conducted. Primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), rate pressure product (RPP), cardiac output (CO), peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), and heart rate variability (HRV). Secondary outcomes were maximum walking distance (MWD) and pain-free walking distance (PFWD). Outcomes were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) between the SET group and the control group and synthesized by using the random-effects model. Seventeen RCTs with a total of 936 patients were included in this review. SET resulted in significant improvements of SBP (WMD =  - 7.40, 95% CI - 10.69 ~  - 4.11, p < 0.001, I2 = 15.2%), DBP (WMD =  - 1.92, 95% CI - 3.82 ~  - 0.02, p = 0.048, I2 = 0.0%), HR (WMD =  - 3.38, 95% CI - 6.30 ~  - 0.46, p = 0.023, I2 = 0.0%), RPP (WMD =  - 1072.82, 95% CI - 1977.05 ~  - 168.59, p = 0.020, I2 = 42.7%), and VO2peak with plantar flexion ergometer exercise (WMD = 5.57, 95% CI 1.66 ~ 9.49, p = 0.005, I2 = 62.4%), whereas CO and HRV remained statistically unaltered. SET also improved MWD (WMD = 139.04, 95% CI 48.64 ~ 229.44, p = 0.003, I2 = 79.3%) and PFWD (WMD = 40.02, 95% CI 23.85 ~ 56.18, p < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%). In conclusion, SET is effective in improving cardiovascular function in patients with IC, which was confirmed on outcomes of cardiovascular function associated with exercise ability. The findings hold out that the standard therapy of SET can improve not only walking distance but also cardiovascular function in patients with IC.

Long-term hypercoagulability, endotheliopathy and inflammation following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection

INTRODUCTION

both symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections - coined Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - have been linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular events after recovery.

AREAS COVERED

our review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the increased thrombotic and cardiovascular risk in recovered COVID-19 patients and to examine the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the interplay among endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory response and coagulation in long-COVID. We performed a systematic search of studies on hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

EXPERT OPINION

endothelial dysfunction is a major pathophysiological mechanism responsible for most clinical manifestations in COVID-19. The pathological activation of endothelial cells by a virus infection results in a pro-adhesive and chemokine-secreting phenotype, which in turn promotes the recruitment of circulating leukocytes. Cardiovascular events after COVID-19 appear to be related to persistent immune dysregulation. Patients with long-lasting symptoms display higher amounts of proinflammatory molecules such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interferon γ and interleukins 2 and 6. Immune dysregulation can trigger the activation of the coagulation pathway. The formation of extensive microclots in vivo, both during acute COVID-19 and in long-COVID-19, appears to be a relevant mechanism responsible for persistent symptoms and cardiovascular events.