Managing anticoagulation in the COVID-19 era between lockdown and reopening phases

Living on Oral Anticoagulants: Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale Results

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. The lack of the need for laboratory monitoring and a better safety than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) has probably changed the quality of life of patients on these oral anticoagulants. This was a real-life prospective observational cohort study. The aim was to evaluate if a long-term treatment with DOACs could offer a better quality of life than VKAs. Moreover, age, gender, education level, time in therapeutic range for VKAs, taking medication once or twice a day for DOACs, the total daily number of medications and thrombotic and bleeding complications were considered as variables probably associated with the quality of life of these patients.

METHODS

Between January and December 2021, the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS) 25-items was administered as an interview to patients on either VKAs or DOACs therapy. During the follow-up period, all of the patients were closely monitored to evaluate possible bleeding and thrombotic events.

RESULTS

The analysis included 300 outpatients treated with VKAs and 254 treated with DOACs. In general, the quality of life was better in patients taking DOACs (DASS total score: DOACs = 44.7, 42.9-46.5 vs. VKAs = 51, 49.2-52.8, p < 0.0001) as the daily-life limitations, hassles and burdens and the psychological impact were less important than in patients on VKAs therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

VKAs negatively influence the daily-life of the patients in terms of both less satisfaction and time-consuming tasks. DOACs confer a better quality of life even if some concerns emerge from not knowing how their therapy is working.

A Delphi consensus on the management of anticoagulation in the COVID-19 pandemic: the MONACO study

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, guideline documents on the management of anticoagulation were rapidly published. However, these documents did not follow a structured methodology, and significant differences existed between the guidelines. The aim of this expert consensus was to provide recommendations on the clinical management of oral anticoagulation in patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A two-round Delphi study was conducted using an online survey. In the first round, panellists expressed their level of agreement with the items on a 9-point Likert scale. Items were selected if they received approval from ≥66.6% of panellists and if they were agreed by the scientific committee. In the second round, panellists revaluated those items that did not meet consensus in the first round.

Results

A total of 147 panellists completed the first round, and 144 of them completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 161 items included in five dimensions. These dimensions addressed: (I) management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without mechanical valves or moderate/severe mitral stenosis during COVID-19 infection; (II) thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; (III) management of anticoagulation at hospital discharge/after COVID-19; (IV) anticoagulation monitoring in the COVID-19 pandemic setting; and (V) role of telemedicine in the management and follow-up of patients with AF in the COVID-19 pandemic setting.

Conclusions

These areas of collective agreement could specially guide clinicians in making decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 during hospitalisation and at discharge, where results from clinical trials are still limited and, in some cases, conflicting.

Proportion of Patients on Warfarin Therapy Who Are Eligible for Conversion to a Direct Oral Anticoagulant in the Setting of COVID-19

Background:

Warfarin, a commonly prescribed anticoagulant, requires frequent lab monitoring. Lab monitoring puts patients at risk of COVID-19 exposure and diverts medical resources away from health care systems. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) do not require routine therapeutic monitoring and are indicated first line for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) stroke prevention and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention/treatment.

Objective:

The purpose of the study was to determine the proportion of patients who qualify for DOACs and assess for predictors of qualification.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study investigated patients on warfarin managed by Michigan Medicine Anticoagulation Service. Direct oral anticoagulant eligibility criteria were established using apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban package inserts. Patient eligibility was determined through chart review. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who qualify for DOACs based on clinical factors. Predictors of DOAC qualification were assessed.

Results:

This study included 3205 patients and found 51.8% (n = 1661) of patients qualified for DOACs. Qualifying patients were older (71.9 vs 59.4 years, P < 0.0001) with a higher CHA₂DS₂ VASc (3.7 vs 3.4, P < 0.0007). The primary disqualifying factor was extreme weight, high and low. Accounting for a patient’s sex and referral source, age > 65 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, P < 0.0001) and NVAF indication (OR = 5.6, P < 0.0001) were significant predictors for DOAC qualification.

Conclusion and Relevance:

Approximately 52% of patients on warfarin were eligible for DOACs. This presents an opportunity to reduce patient exposure to health care settings and health care utilization in the setting of COVID-19. Increased costs of DOACs need to be assessed.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on England's national prescriptions of oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs): an interrupted time series analysis (January 2019-February 2021)

BACKGROUND

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were developed as an alternative to warfarin to treat and prevent thromboembolism, including stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. The COVID-19 pandemic could increase the risk of stroke and/or the risk of bleeding in patients due to nonadherence or sub/supra-optimal dosing.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate DOAC prescription trends in England's community settings during the complete first wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Descriptive and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses were conducted to examine the prescription patterns of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) and warfarin for primary care patients in the English Prescribing Dataset from January 2019 to February 2021, with March 2020 as the cut-off point.

RESULTS

A 19% increase in mean DOAC's accompanied with 20% warfarin prescriptions decline was observed. ITS modelling showed an increase in DOAC prescription volume in March 2020 (+7 million items, p = 0.008). The pre-existing upward trend in DOAC prescriptions slowed during the period (-427,000 items, p = 0.007). Apixaban was the most frequently used DOAC and had the largest step-change in March 2020 (+5 million items, p = 0.010). The mean monthly combined cost of DOACs and warfarin was higher during the period. DOAC prescription trends were consistent across England's regions. Conclusion: The overall oral anticoagulants use in this period was lower than expected, indicating a medical needs gap, possibly due to adherence issues. The potential clinical and logistical consequences warrant further study to identify contributing factors and mitigate avoidable risks.

The Use of Oral Anticoagulation Is Not Associated With a Reduced Risk of Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Background: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolic events are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Whether chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improve the prognosis is yet controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the association between the chronic OAC and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify studies that evaluated OAC for COVID-19 until 24 July 2021. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to pool the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. According to the type of oral anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)], subgroup and interaction analyses were performed to compare DOACs and VKAs. Meta-regression was performed to explore the potential confounders on all-cause mortality.

Results: A total of 12 studies involving 30,646 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results confirmed that chronic OAC did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.82–1.03; p = 0.165) or ICU admission (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.40–1.04; p = 0.073) in patients with COVID-19 compared to those without OAC. The chronic use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to VKAs (P_interaction = 0.497) in subgroup and interaction analyses. The meta-regression failed to detect any potential confounding on all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with chronic OAC were not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and ICU admission compared to those without OAC, and the results were consistent across DOACs and VKA subgroups.

Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42021269764.

Drive-Through Anticoagulation Clinic During the COVID-19 Pandemic

An innovative approach to anticoagulation management during the COVID-19 pandemic was used at our center that allowed patients to stay in their vehicle while our anticoagulation advanced practice registered nurse obtained blood for point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) testing while education and counseling were completed. A significant improvement in the median percentage of INR within the therapeutic range was observed among the patients who used the drive-through clinic. A small group of patients improved compliance to anticoagulation monitoring. Clinical care models, such as this clinic approach may improve patient compliance and adherence to anticoagulation beyond the pandemic needs.

A case series of myocardial infarction in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients: Same complication, different outcomes

Thrombosis is frequently observed in COVID-19, especially in critically ill patients. Management of such life-threatening conditions is of high importance in the context of the current pandemic. Herein, we provide a case series of myocardial infarction in the clinical evolution of COVID-19, emphasizing its importance and implications on the cardiovascular system.

Stroke network performance during the first COVID-19 pandemic stage: A meta-analysis based on stroke network models

BACKGROUND

The effect of the COVID pandemic on stroke network performance is unclear, particularly with consideration of drip&ship vs. mothership models.

AIMS

We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed variations in stroke admissions, rate and timing of reperfusion treatments during the first wave COVID pandemic vs. the pre-pandemic timeframe depending on stroke network model adopted.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The systematic review followed registered protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42020211535), PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 9 October 2020 for studies reporting variations in ischemic stroke admissions, treatment rates, and timing in COVID (first wave) vs. control-period. Primary outcome was the weekly admission incidence rate ratio (IRR = admissions during COVID-period/admissions during control-period). Secondary outcomes were (i) changes in rate of reperfusion treatments and (ii) time metrics for pre- and in-hospital phase. Data were pooled using random-effects models, comparing mothership vs. drip&ship model. Overall, 29 studies were included in quantitative synthesis (n = 212,960). COVID-period was associated with a significant reduction in stroke admission rates (IRR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.61-0.79), with higher relative presentation of large vessel occlusion (risk ratio (RR) = 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24-2.12). Proportions of patients treated with endovascular treatment increased (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.02-1.28). Intravenous thrombolysis decreased overall (IRR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.54-0.96) but not in the mothership model (IRR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.43-1.52). Onset-to-door time was longer for the drip&ship in COVID-period compared to the control-period (+32 min, 95%CI = 0-64). Door-to-scan was longer in COVID-period (+5 min, 95%CI = 2-7). Door-to-needle and door-to-groin were similar in COVID-period and control-period.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a 35% drop in stroke admissions during the first pandemic wave, proportions of patients receiving reperfusion and time-metrics were not inferior to control-period. Mothership preserved the weekly rate of intravenous thrombolysis and the onset-to-door timing to pre-pandemic standards.

Appointment attendance and patient perception of drive-up INR testing in a rural anticoagulation clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The Anticoagulation Forum and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend drive-up international normalized ratio (INR) testing to combat INR non-adherence and increase safety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient perceptions and impact on attendance have not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess appointment volume and patient perception after initiation of drive-up INR testing in a rural pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.

METHODS

This cross-sectional cohort survey study offered each patient attending the anticoagulation clinic via drive-up or in-office visit a survey between May 27 and July 2, 2020. Patients testing off-site were excluded. Study end points included monthly patient volume, visit type preference, testing barriers, desired drive-up duration, and overall clinic satisfaction. Clinic appointment volume from October 2019 to June 2020 was collected retrospectively through a schedule review.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (80%) of 80 surveys offered were completed: 46.6% of respondents preferred drive-up testing, 26.7% indifferent, and 26.7% preferred in-office visits; 38.7% of respondents indicated a greater likelihood of continuing routine INR monitoring via drive-up testing. Of the respondents completing the survey curbside, 46% and 27% of respondents identified reduced COVID-19 transmission risk and ease of transportation as benefits of drive-up INR testing, respectively. March and April clinic volumes were 19% and 22% below average, respectively, returning to baseline after drive-up testing was implemented. Clinic rating before and after drive-up testing remained high at 2.75 on a scale of 0-3. While infection risk was identified as the biggest barrier to care by 32.8% of respondents, 59.3% of all respondents wanted drive-up testing to continue indefinitely.

CONCLUSIONS

Drive-up INR testing improves patient attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient perception of drive-up testing is positive. About 46% of respondents preferred drive-up INR testing with telehealth follow-up and 59.3% of respondents want drive-up testing to continue indefinitely, which suggests this approach to INR testing as a potential method to allay barriers to routine monitoring beyond the scope of the pandemic.

Mejorar la prevención de la trombosis y las complicaciones cardiovasculares durante la pandemia de COVID-19

Las complicaciones cardiovasculares son frecuentes en el paciente con la enfermedad coronavírica de 2019 (COVID-19), y se asocian con una mayor mortalidad. Entre las complicaciones cardiovasculares, destacan el síndrome coronario agudo, el daño miocárdico agudo (elevación de troponinas con coronarias normales), arritmias (principalmente fibrilación auricular y arritmias ventriculares), insuficiencia cardiaca, pericarditis/derrame pericárdico y complicaciones tromboembólicas (tromboembolia arterial y venosa, trombosis microvascular, embolia pulmonar, ictus). Por lo tanto, uno de los objetivos del tratamiento del paciente con COVID-19, sobre todo en sus formas más graves, es la prevención de las complicaciones cardiovasculares y trombóticas, lo que sin duda tendría un impacto positivo en el pronóstico de estos pacientes.

Fuera de este contexto, los resultados provenientes tanto de ensayos clínicos como de estudios en la práctica clínica muestran que el rivaroxabán es eficaz y seguro en todo el espectro de la enfermedad cardiovascular (fibrilación auricular, enfermedad tromboembólica venosa y enfermedad cardiovascular ateroesclerótica), por lo que podría aportar un valor añadido en la prevención de las complicaciones trombóticas y cardiovasculares durante la pandemia de COVID-19.

Prevalence of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a cross-sectional study

The association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and venous thrombotic disorders is still unclear. We assessed the association between COVID-19 infection-related pneumonia and proximal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in a cohort of patients admitted to our hospital during the European outbreak in the front line of Cremona, Lombardy. In a single-center cross-sectional study, all patients hospitalized for more than 5 days in Internal Medicine Department with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia received 2-point compressive ultrasound assessment (CUS) of the leg vein system during a single day. Ninety-four percent of patients received enoxaparin as standard pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. The presence of DVT was defined as incompressibility of popliteal or common femoral vein. Out of 121 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (mean age 71.8, 66.3% males) hospitalized on March 31st, 70 stayed in hospital for over 5 days and 66 of them underwent CUS of deep venous system of the legs. The presence of asymptomatic DVT was found in 9 patients (13.6%). No symptomatic DVT was found. Patients with DVT showed mean age = 75.7 years, mean D-dimer levels = 4.02 ng/ml and all of them received enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis, except one. Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram confirmed pulmonary embolism in five patients. One every seven patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia, hospitalized for more than 5 days, had asymptomatic proximal DVT and half of them had confirmed PE despite standard pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This observational study suggests the need of an active surveillance through CUS in patients hospitalized with acute SARS-COV-2 and underline the need of a more intense thromboprophylaxis.

Dabigatran, the oral anticoagulant of choice at discharge in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and COVID-19 infection: the ANIBAL protocol

Atrial fibrillation is a frequent complication among patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection. Both direct and indirect mechanisms through COVID-19 have been described to explain this relationship. COVID-19 infection increases the risk of developing both arterial and venous thrombotic complications through systemic coagulation activation, leading to increased mortality. Chronic oral anticoagulation is essential to reduce the thromboembolic risk among AF patients. Switching to low-molecular-weight heparin has been recommended during hospitalization for COVID-19 infection. Of note, at discharge, the prescription of direct oral anticoagulants may offer some advantages over vitamin K antagonists. However, oral anticoagulants should only be prescribed after the consideration of drug-drug interactions with antiviral therapies as well as of the risk of hepatotoxicity, which is common among individuals with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Not all anticoagulants have the same risk of hepatotoxicity; dabigatran has shown a good efficacy and safety profile and could have a lower risk of hepatotoxicity. Furthermore, its metabolism by cytochrome P450 is absent and it has a specific reversal agent. Therefore, dabigatran may be considered as a first-line choice for oral anticoagulation at discharge after COVID-19 infection. In this review, the available information on the antithrombotic management of AF patients at discharge after COVID-19 infection is updated. In addition, a practical algorithm, considering renal and liver function, which facilitates the anticoagulation choice at discharge is presented.

Managing anticoagulation in the COVID-19 era between lockdown and reopening phases

Patients on anticoagulant treatment are constantly increasing, with an estimated prevalence in Italy of 2% of the total population. The recent spreadout of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a re-organization of Anticoagulation Clinics to prevent person-to-person viral diffusion and continue to offer the highest possible quality of assistance to patients. In this paper, based on the Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics statements, we offer some advice aimed at improving patient care during COVID-19 pandemic, with particular regard to the lockdown and reopening periods. We give practical guidance regarding the following points: (1) re-thinking the AC organization, (2) managing patients on anticoagulants when they become infected by the virus, (3) managing anticoagulation surveillance in non-infected patients during the lockdown period, and (4) organizing the activities during the reopening phases.