Thromboprophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard of care in unvaccinated, at-risk outpatients with COVID-19 (ETHIC): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial

Antithrombotic Prophylaxis with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Prehospital COVID-19: A Meta-analysis of Two Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

 We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily in prehospital patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Individually, the trials had limited power to detect a treatment effect due to recruitment stopping ahead of plan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 The statistical analysis plan for the meta-analysis was finalized before unblinding of PREVENT-HD, the larger of the two trials. Pooled risk ratios and pooled risk differences along with the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

 Rivaroxaban did not reduce the occurrence of either the primary prespecified endpoint, a composite of symptomatic arterial and venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality (risk difference: 0.0044; 95% confidence interval: -0.0263, 0.0175; p = 0.69 for pooled risk difference) or the secondary endpoint of all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.76). Although thrombotic events were infrequent, pooled analysis did reveal that rivaroxaban reduced arterial and venous thrombotic events (placebo 6 events, rivaroxaban 0 events; pooled risk difference: -0.0068; 95% confidence interval: -0.0132, -0.0006; p = 0.03). In the pooled studies, only one major bleeding event was observed in a rivaroxaban-allocated patient with no critical site or fatal bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

 Although this meta-analysis does not support antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban in a broad prehospital population with acute COVID-19, the prevention of arterial and venous thrombotic events among rivaroxaban-allocated patients is consistent with the known thromboprophylactic effect of the drug in medically ill patients.

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.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Patients with COVID-19 develop an increased risk of thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19 is less well defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis among outpatients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 2023. The outcomes of interest were venous thromboembolic events including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, hospitalization, major bleeding events, and non-major bleeding events. We included 6 trials comprising 3352 patients. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had an approximately 70% reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.93]) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The risk of mortality (RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.77]), cardiovascular events (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.30 to 2.73]), and hospitalization (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.47]) were similar between the two groups. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had a higher risk of non-major bleeding (RR, 3.48 [95% CI, 1.72 to 7.05) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism but not mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalization among outpatients with COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of antithrombotics in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health emergency, with well over six hundred million infections and over six million deaths to date. Besides other ramifications, it is also associated with inflammation and an augmented risk of thromboembolic complications. Despite this, the risks and benefits of antithrombotic drugs in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 have not been well-established and remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic drugs on mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We queried electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Embase) from their inception up to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic drugs against placebo. The outcomes of interest were the need for hospital care, mortality, and thromboembolic events in the enrolled participants. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and were consolidated using random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Five eligible studies (Rivaroxaban/Apixaban, two; enoxaparin, two; Sulodexide, one), consisting of 2,005 participants with mild to moderate COVID-19, were included. Pooled results show that antithrombotics, when compared to placebo, do not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.15-1.68; P = 0.27; I2 = 0), thromboembolic events (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.17-3.51; P = 0.74; I2 = 0), need for hospitalization (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.51-1.03; P = 0.08; I2 = 0), nor significantly increase clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (RR 2.36, 95 % CI 0.56-9.89; P = 0.24; I2 = 0). However, when Sulodexide was compared independently to other antithrombotics, it significantly reduced the need for hospitalization (RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.37-0.95; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our pooled analysis was not able to establish statistically significant benefits or risks of using antithrombotic drugs in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. To further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety and risk profile of such a therapy, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale.

The impacts of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy during hospitalization on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk COVID-19 patients amid the omicron wave of the pandemic

Background

Although prophylactic anticoagulation therapy is suggested to be adopted in severe COVID-19 patients, its effects on the long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, namely the risk of major adverse CV events(MACEs) in high-risk CV patients amid the omicron wave of the pandemic, remain unknown.

Methods

We conducted this prospective cohort study of consecutive adults hospitalized COVID-19 between 19 April and 12 June 2022, COVID-19 patients with at least two CV risk factors or pre-existing CV diseases were enrolled. A propensity score matching(PSM) method was used to evaluated the effects of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in hospital on long-term MACEs, including CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris, coronary revascularization and arterial or venous thrombosis.

Results

Two cohorts (with or without anticoagulants during hospitalization) of each 230 patients with balanced baseline characteristics were formed using PSM. During the 15-month follow-up period, 13 patients with anticoagulants and 29 patients without anticoagulants developed MACEs. Overall, the anticoagulation group had a significantly lower risk of MACEs than the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.431; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.224-0.830, P = 0.010). Regarding specific constituents of MACEs, the differences were mainly reflected in arterial or venous thrombosis. The significantly lower HRs of overall MACEs were significantly observed in subgroup of age > 75 years, women, higher D dimer level, unvaccinated and non-nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescribed patients.

Conclusions

Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy during hospitalization was effective in reducing long-term MACEs among COVID-19 patients with CV risk factors or pre-existing CV diseases amid the omicron wave of the pandemic.

Treatments for COVID-19

The treatment for COVID-19 has evolved rapidly since the start of the pandemic and now consists mainly of antiviral and immunomodulatory agents. Antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, have proved to be most useful earlier in illness (e.g., as outpatient therapy) and for less severe disease. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as dexamethasone and interleukin-6 or Janus kinase inhibitors, are most useful in severe disease or critical illness. The role of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies has diminished because of the emergence of viral variants that are not anticipated to be susceptible to these treatments, and there still is not a consensus on the use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 has been associated with increased rates of venous thromboembolism, but the role of antithrombotic therapy is limited. Multiple investigational agents continue to be studied, which will alter current treatment paradigms as new data are released.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

The 2023 Belgian clinical guidance on anticoagulation management in hospitalized and ambulatory COVID-19 patients

COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for thrombotic complications. The trials investigating the optimal thromboprophylactic dose are performed in challenging times and seemingly produce conflicting evidence. The burdensome circumstances, divergent endpoints, and different analytical approaches hamper comparison and extrapolation of available evidence. Most importantly, clinicians should provide thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients while (re)assessing bleeding and thrombotic risk frequently. The COVID-19 Thromboprophylaxis Working Group of the BSTH updated its guidance document. It aims to summarize the available evidence critically and to guide clinicians in providing the best possible thromboprophylaxis.

Pulmonary embolism post-Covid-19 infection: physiopathological mechanisms and vascular damage biomarkers

Covid-19 infection is characterized by several acute complications, as well long-term sequelae, mostly sustained by endothelial dysfunction; several studies show that complications as pulmonary embolism (PE) are described both in the acute phase and after negativization. Aim of research was to evaluate anthropometric, bio-humoral, instrumental parameters in a group of patients affected by PE after recent Covid-19 infection compared to PE patients without previous Covid-19 infection. We enrolled 72 consecutive patients (35M, 37F) with acute PE, distinguished in relation to previous acute Covid-19 infection: 54 pts without previous acute Covid-19 infection and 18 pts with previous Covid-19 infection within negativity at least 2 months before PE diagnosis; 44 healthy subjects (21M, 23F) were recruited as control group. Patients who had previously developed Covid-19 needed hospitalization in high percentage (84%); this group showed significantly higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus than Covid-19-free PE patients, reduced serum levels of C-reactive protein, sST2 and PESI score. In post-Covid-19 PE group, we observed higher mean IMPROVE risk score, whereas in Covid-19-free group lower P/F ratio, higher radiological severity, and worse PESI score and severity index. Covid-19 infection affects not just the lung parenchyma but also other organs; endothelial damage plays pivotal role in long-term alterations; in high thrombotic risk group (recent hospitalization due to acute Covid-19 infection), we have described thrombotic complications characterized by persistent prothrombotic state after recovery, highlighted by well-known markers as PCR and D-Dimer as well as novel vascular marker (sST2).

Incidence and individual risk prediction of post-COVID-19 cardiovascular disease in the general population: a multivariable prediction model development and validation study

Aims

Previous studies suggest relatively increased cardiovascular risk after COVID-19 infection. This study assessed incidence and explored individual risk and timing of cardiovascular disease occurring post-COVID-19 in a large primary care database.

Methods and results

Data were extracted from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Incidence rates within 180 days post-infection were estimated for arterial or venous events, inflammatory heart disease, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Next, multivariable logistic regression models were developed on 220 751 adults with COVID-19 infection before 1 December 2020 using age, sex and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. All models were externally validated in (i) 138 034 vaccinated and (ii) 503 404 unvaccinated adults with a first COVID-19 infection after 1 December 2020. Discriminative performance and calibration were evaluated with internal and external validation. Increased incidence rates were observed up to 60 days after COVID-19 infection for venous and arterial cardiovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation, but not for inflammatory heart disease or heart failure, with the highest rate for venous events (13 per 1000 person-years). The best prediction models had c-statistics of 0.90 or higher. However, <5% of adults had a predicted 180-day outcome-specific risk larger than 1%. These rare outcomes complicated calibration.

Conclusion

Risks of arterial and venous cardiovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation are increased within the first 60 days after COVID-19 infection in the general population. Models' c-statistics suggest high discrimination, but because of the very low absolute risks, they are insufficient to inform individual risk management.

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial activation in the setting of a potent inflammatory reaction and a hypercoagulable state. The end result of this thromboinflammatory state is an excess in thrombotic events, in particular venous thromboembolism. Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been of special interest in patients with COVID-19 given its association with respiratory deterioration, increased risk of intensive care unit admission, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated PE may differ from the conventional non-COVID-19-associated PE. In addition to embolic events from deep vein thrombi, in situ pulmonary thrombosis, particularly in smaller vascular beds, may be relevant in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate prevention of thrombotic events in COVID-19 has therefore become of critical interest. Several changes in viral biology, vaccination, and treatment management during the pandemic may have resulted in changes in incidence trends. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of COVID-19-associated PE. Furthermore, we briefly summarize the results from randomized controlled trials of preventive antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19, focusing on their findings related to PE. We discuss the acute treatment of COVID-19-associated PE, which is substantially similar to the management of conventional non-COVID-19 PE. Ultimately, we comment on the current knowledge gaps in the evidence and the future directions in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19-associated PE, including long-term management, and its possible association with long-COVID.

Uncertainties about the roles of anticoagulation and microclots in postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

Three years after the start of the pandemic, approaches to the prevention and treatment of acute COVID-19 have been established. However, postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is now the focus of current investigations searching for the etiology of the symptoms and developing diagnostic and treatment strategies, as up to 10% of those with acute COVID-19 will go on to develop PASC, a significant public health burden. Some have suggested that ongoing microvascular thrombosis and microclots may play a role in the persistent sequelae of COVID-19 infection. Treatments are being given to address the presumed role of thrombosis in PASC, and some suggest that randomized controlled trials of anticoagulants in patients with PASC should be performed. In this Forum article, we focus on findings from patients with PASC that have led to the suggestion of using anticoagulants and discuss alternative considerations.

Enoxaparin for symptomatic COVID-19 managed in the ambulatory setting: An individual patient level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC trials

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria).

RESULTS

A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57-1.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13-2.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events.

A case report of spontaneous pectoral hematoma in a male with background antiplatelet therapy after severe COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous muscle hematoma is a rare complication in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present a case of spontaneous pectoral hematoma occurring after COVID-19 infection and anticoagulation therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old male presented to the hospital with a two-week history of shortness of breath and a one-week history of high fever. Despite testing positive for COVID-19, the patient's symptoms did not improve with two doses of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A chest CT scan revealed pulmonary infection and SpO2 tested between 80% and 85% at rest in local hospital. The patient transferred to our intensive care unit, then received multiple treatments, including high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), antibiotics, methylprednisolone, IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody (tocilizumab), and an increased D-Dimer level leaded to intermediate dose of anticoagulation therapy. However, on the 10th day of hospitalization, the patient developed a hematoma in the left pectoralis major muscle. This was accompanied by hemorrhagic shock, necessitating the administration of norepinephrine, fluid resuscitation, and a blood transfusion. Arterial embolization was performed to manage the bleeding, resulting in stabilization of the patient's condition. Following discharge, the patient experienced an uneventful recovery over a period of six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe COVID-19 patients undergoing routine therapeutic anticoagulation may experience fatal bleeding complications. The ideal dosage of anticoagulants for these patients remains uncertain, especially in the patient with a background of anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy. We present a case of spontaneous muscle hematoma accompanied by hemorrhagic shock. The notable reduction in hemoglobin levels indicated significant bleeding, which was confirmed through contrast angiography and cured by arterial embolization. This case underscores the importance of additional research to determine the appropriate utilization of therapeutic anticoagulation in severe COVID-19 patients already undergoing antithrombotic therapy.

Thrombotic complications in children with Coronavirus disease 2019 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome of Childhood

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy is multifactorial and involves inflammation driven hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, and impaired fibrinolysis. Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of both venous thromboembolism and ischemic stroke, resulting in adverse outcomes, including increased mortality. Although COVID-19 in children follows a less severe course, both arterial and venous thromboses have been reported in hospitalized children with COVID-19. Additionally, some children develop a postinfectious, hyperinflammatory illness termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood (MIS-C), which is also associated with hypercoagulability and thrombosis. Several randomized trials have evaluated the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in adults with COVID-19, although similar pediatric data are lacking. In this narrative review, we discuss the postulated pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy and summarize principal findings of the recently completed adult trials of antithrombotic therapy. We provide an up-to-date summary of pediatric studies investigating the rate of venous thromboembolism and ischemic stroke in COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood in addition to reviewing the findings of the single, nonrandomized pediatric trial investigating the safety of prophylactic anticoagulation. Lastly, we outline adult and pediatric consensus guidelines on the use of antithrombotic therapy in this cohort. A detailed discussion of the practical implementation and current limitations of published data will hopefully address the knowledge deficits surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapy in children with COVID-19 and generate hypotheses for future research.

COVID-19 thromboembolism is reduced in ambulatory, but not hospitalized patients, following COVID-19 vaccination

Not available.

Pathological Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Hematological Abnormalities

The SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic that has claimed the lives of 6.9 million people and infected over 765 million. It has become a major worldwide health problem and is also known to cause abnormalities in various systems, including the hematologic system. COVID-19 infection primarily affects the lower respiratory tract and can lead to a cascade of events, including a cytokine storm, intravascular thrombosis, and subsequent complications such as arterial and venous thromboses. COVID-19 can cause thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, and neutrophilia, which are associated with worse outcomes. Prophylactic anticoagulation is essential to prevent complications and death rates associated with the virus's effect on the coagulation system. It is crucial to recognize these complications early and promptly start therapeutic anticoagulation to improve patient outcomes. While rare, COVID-19-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) exhibits some similarities to DIC induced by sepsis. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), D-dimer, ferritin, and C-reactive protein (CRP) biomarkers often increase in serious COVID-19 cases and poor prognosis. Understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and identifying risk factors for adverse outcomes is critical for effective management of COVID-19.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Role of Therapeutic Anticoagulation in COVID-19: The Current Situation

Thrombotic complications from COVID-19 are now well known and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. Different variants confer varying risks of thrombotic complications. Heparin has anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects. Due to its non-anticoagulant effects, escalated-dose anticoagulation, especially therapeutic-dose heparin, has been studied for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Few randomized, controlled trials have examined the role of therapeutic anticoagulation in moderately to severely ill patients with COVID-19. Most of these patients had elevated D-dimers and low bleeding risks. Some trials used an innovative adaptive multiplatform with Bayesian analysis to answer this critical question promptly. All the trials were open-label and had several limitations. Most trials showed improvements in the meaningful clinical outcomes of organ-support-free days and reductions in thrombotic events, mainly in non-critically-ill COVID-19 patients. However, the mortality benefit needed to be more consistent. A recent meta-analysis confirmed the results. Multiple centers initially adopted intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis, but the studies failed to show meaningful benefits. Given the new evidence, significant societies have suggested therapeutic anticoagulation in carefully selected patients who are moderately ill and do not require an intensive-care-unit level of care. There are multiple ongoing trials globally to further our understanding of therapeutic-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In this review, we aim to summarize the current evidence regarding the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 infection.

An Evolving Understanding of the Basis and Management of Vascular Complications of COVID-19: Where Do We Go From Here?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to millions of deaths worldwide after its emergence in 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 virus primarily affects respiratory function, but immune dysregulation leading to systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy can predispose to systemic complications including hematologic and vascular complications. Treatment strategies for patients with COVID-19 have rapidly evolved and the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic agents have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. The findings have spurred interest in the prevention and treatment of the hematologic and vascular complications of non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. This review is focused on hematological and vascular complications of COVID-19, including their pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Because of the perpetually changing nature of the disease, the review places previous data in temporal contexts and outlines potential next steps for future research in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory infections.

Cellular and molecular features of COVID-19 associated ARDS: therapeutic relevance

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can be asymptomatic or cause a disease (COVID-19) characterized by different levels of severity. The main cause of severe COVID-19 and death is represented by acute (or acute on chronic) respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), often requiring hospital admission and ventilator support.The molecular pathogenesis of COVID-19-related ARDS (by now termed c-ARDS) is still poorly understood. In this review we will discuss the genetic susceptibility to COVID-19, the pathogenesis and the local and systemic biomarkers correlated with c-ARDS and the therapeutic options that target the cell signalling pathways of c-ARDS.

Therapeutic considerations for prevention and treatment of thrombotic events in COVID-19

Thrombosis is a known complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly within a severely symptomatic subset of patients with COVID-19 disease, in whom an aggressive host immune response leads to cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). The incidence of thrombotic events coinciding with CSS may contribute to the severe morbidity and mortality observed in association with COVID-19. This review provides an overview of pharmacologic approaches based upon an emerging understanding of the mechanisms responsible for thrombosis across a spectrum of COVID-19 disease involving an interplay between immunologic and pro-thrombotic events, including endothelial injury, platelet activation, altered coagulation pathways, and impaired fibrinolysis.

Risk of venous thromboembolic events after COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Data regarding the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), including acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in recovered COVID-19 patients are scant. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of acute PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered subject. Following the PRIMSA guidelines, we searched Medline and Scopus to locate all articles published up to September 1st, 2022, reporting the risk of acute PE and/or DVT in patients recovered from COVID-19 infection compared to non-infected patients who developed VTE over the same follow-up period. PE and DVT risk were evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects models with Hazard ratio (HR) as the effect measure with 95% confidence interval (CI) while heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I² statistic. Overall, 29.078.950 patients (mean age 50.2 years, 63.9% males), of which 2.060.496 had COVID-19 infection, were included. Over a mean follow-up of 8.5 months, the cumulative incidence of PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered patients were 1.2% (95% CI:0.9-1.4, I2: 99.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI:1.7-3.0, I2: 99.7%), respectively. Recovered COVID-19 patients presented a higher risk of incident PE (HR: 3.16, 95% CI: 2.63-3.79, I² = 90.1%) and DVT (HR: 2.55, 95% CI: 2.09-3.11, I²: 92.6%) compared to non-infected patients from the general population over the same follow-up period. Meta-regression showed a higher risk of PE and DVT with age and with female gender, and lower risk with longer follow-up. Recovered COVID-19 patients have a higher risk of VTE events, which increase with aging and among females.

Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial.

METHODS

Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19: benefits and concerns

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on the public health worldwide and it scarred the medical, economical, and social determinants of health. Even after the significant vaccination advances, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest in severe presentations with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ complications leading to notable morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and researchers are on continuous pursuit of investigating different approaches in the attempt to prevent the infection and minimize its severity. Although the COVID-19's pathophysiology remains relatively unclear, it is well established now that coagulopathy, systemic thrombotic propensity, and a robust immunoinflammatory response are some of the most important determinants of its morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, research efforts have focused on addressing the inflammatory and hematological cascades using available agents to avoid thromboembolic events. Several studies and investigators have emphasized the importance of Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), namely, Lovenox, in addressing these sequelae of the COVID-19 disease, either prophylactically or therapeutically. This review explores the benefits and concerns of employing LMWH, a widely used anticoagulant, in COVID-19 disease. It delves into Enoxaparin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology, mechanism of action, and clinical uses. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence that highlight the role of enoxaparin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Outpatient Randomized Controlled Trials in the Covid-19 Era and Beyond

Outpatient Trials in the Covid-19 Era and BeyondA group of investigators had a meeting at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in May 2020 to discuss ways to decrease thrombotic complications among symptomatic outpatients with Covid-19. The investigators discuss their approach to three specific challenges: conducting a trial remotely, working through regulatory hurdles, and recruiting a diverse population of participants.

Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions.

INTERPRETATION

The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.