Different Anticoagulant Regimens, Mortality, and Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and an Updated Meta-Analysis

Effect of anticoagulation on the incidence of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an updated meta-analysis

Objective

Anticoagulation is crucial for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the optimal anticoagulation regimen needs further exploration. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of diverse anticoagulation dosage dosages for COVID-19.

Methods

An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of thromboprophylaxis (standard, intermediate, and therapeutic dose) on the incidence of VTE, mortality and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Literature was searched via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for effect estimates.

Results

Nineteen studies involving 25,289 participants without VTE history were included. The mean age of patients was 59.3 years old. About 50.96% were admitted to the intensive care unit. In the pooled analysis, both therapeutic-dose and intermediate-dose anticoagulation did not have a significant advantage in reducing VTE risk over standard dosage (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.58-2.02, and OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, respectively). Similarly, all-cause mortality was not further decreased in either therapeutic-dose group (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.75-1.67) or intermediate-dose group (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.83-2.17). While the major bleeding risk was significantly elevated in the therapeutic-dose group (OR = 2.59, 95%CI: 1.87-3.57) as compared with the standard-dose regimen. Compared with intermediate dosage, therapeutic anticoagulation did not reduce consequent VTE risk (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.52-1.38) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.60-1.17), but significantly increased major bleeding rate (OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.58-3.70). In subgroup analysis of patients older than 65 years, therapeutic anticoagulation significantly lowered the incidence of VTE in comparation comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis, however, at the cost of elevated risk of major bleeding.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that for most hospitalized patients with COVID-19, standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation might be the optimal choice. For elderly patients at low risk of bleeding, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation could further reduce VTE risk and should be considered especially when there were other strong risk factors of VTE during hospital stay.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier, CRD42023388429.

Uncoupling of platelet granule release and integrin activation suggests GPIIb/IIIa as a therapeutic target in COVID-19

Thromboembolic events are frequent and life-threating complications of COVID-19 but are also observed in patients with sepsis. Disseminated thrombosis can occur despite anticoagulation, suggesting that platelets play a direct but incompletely understood role. Several studies demonstrated altered platelet function in COVID-19 with some controversial findings, while underlying disease-specific mechanisms remain ill defined. We performed a comprehensive cohort study with 111 patients, comprising 37 with COVID-19, 46 with sepsis, and 28 with infection, compared with control participants. Platelet phenotype and function were assessed under static and flow conditions, revealing unexpected disease-specific differences. From hospital admission onward, platelets in COVID-19 failed to activate the integrin glycoprotein IIb/IIa (GPIIb/IIIa) in response to multiple agonists. Dense granule release was markedly impaired due to virtually missing granules, also demonstrated by whole-mount electron microscopy. By contrast, α-granule marker CD62P exposure was only mildly affected, revealing a subpopulation of PAC-1-/CD62P+ platelets, independently confirmed by automated clustering. This uncoupling of α-granule release was not observed in patients with sepsis, despite a similar disease severity. We found overall unaltered thrombus formation in COVID-19 and sepsis samples under venous shear rates, which was dependent on the presence of tissue factor. Unexpectedly, under arterial shear rates, thrombus formation was virtually abrogated in sepsis, whereas we detected overall normal-sized and stable thrombi in blood from patients with COVID-19. These thrombi were susceptible to subthreshold levels of GPIIb/IIIa blockers, eptifibatide, or tirofiban that had only a minor effect in control participants' blood. We provide evidence that low-dose GPIIb/IIIa blockade could be a therapeutic approach in COVID-19.

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.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 associated vasculopathic diseases

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has shown to be an infectious disease affecting not only of the respiratory system, but also cardiovascular system leading to different COVID-19-associated vasculopathies. Venous and arterial thromboembolic events have been frequently described among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and inflammatory vasculopathic changes have also been observed. Several of the reported COVID-19 associated vasculopathies exhibit differences on epidemiology, clinical characteristics and outcome compared to non-COVID-19 types. This review focuses on the epidemiology, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic characteristics as well as outcome data of COVID-19 associated thromboembolic events and inflammatory vasculopathies, elaborating similarities and differences with non-COVID-19 cohorts.

Anticoagulation strategy and safety in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a French retrospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Patients with critical illness due to COVID-19 exhibit increased coagulability associated with a high risk of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Data on prophylactic anticoagulation for these patients are limited and conflicting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission was associated with better outcomes compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation.

METHODS

We retrospectively included adults admitted with severe COVID-19 to any of 15 ICUs, in 2020 or 2021. We compared the groups given intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was all-cause day-90 mortality. Secondary outcomes were VTE (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis), ICU stay length, and adverse effects of anticoagulation.

RESULTS

Of 1174 included patients (mean age, 63 years), 399 received standard-dose and 775 intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Of the 211 patients who died within 90 days, 86 (21%) received intermediate and 125 (16%) standard doses. After adjustment on early corticosteroid therapy and critical illness severity, there were no significant between-group differences in day-90 mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95%CI, 0.52-1.04; p = 0.09) or ICU stay length (HR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79-1.10; p = 0.38). Intermediate-dose anticoagulation was significantly associated with fewer VTE events (HR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.38-0.80; p < 0.001). Bleeding events occurred in similar proportions of patients in the two groups (odds ratio, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.50-1.47; p = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality on day 90 did not differ between the groups given standard-dose and intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, despite a higher incidence of VTE in the standard-dose group.

Safety and Efficacy of Different Anticoagulant Doses for Patients with COVID-19 in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high incidence of thromboembolic events, which significantly influence the risk of mortality. Anticoagulant therapy is generally recommended to these patients but the optimal dosing regimens require further investigations. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic, intermediate and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A systematic search for original prospective observational studies and clinical trials was performed in online databases from 2020 to 2022. A total of 13 studies (3239 patients) were included. The type of anticoagulant dosing showed no significant influence on short-term mortality (p = 0.84), deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.66), arterial thrombosis (p = 0.44), major bleeding (p = 0.35) and minor bleeding incidence (p = 0.46). An anticoagulation regimen significantly influenced pulmonary embolism occurrence (16% for prophylactic dose vs. 4% for therapeutic dose, p = 0.02), but the number of studies in the analysis was relatively low. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted in the ICU have no benefit from therapeutic doses of anticoagulants and that all three thromboprophylaxis regimes have a comparable effect on short term mortality and venous thromboembolism incidence but for pulmonary embolism, for which the results were inconclusive.

Prevalence and clinical implications of atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19: Data from a registry in Poland

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia with increasing prevalence with respect to age and comorbidities. AF may influence the prognosis in patients hospitalized with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to assess the prevalence of AF among patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 and the association of AF and in-hospital anticoagulation treatment with prognosis.

Methods and results

We assessed the prevalence of AF among patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 and the association of AF and in-hospital anticoagulation treatment with prognosis. Data of all COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the University Hospital in Krakow, Poland, between March 2020 and April 2021, were analyzed. The following outcomes: short-term (30-days since hospital admission) and long-term (180-days after hospital discharge) mortality, major cardiovascular events (MACEs), pulmonary embolism, and need for red blood cells (RBCs) transfusion, as a surrogate for major bleeding events during hospital stay were assessed. Out of 4,998 hospitalized patients, 609 had AF (535 pre-existing and 74 de novo). Compared to those without AF, patients with AF were older and had more cardiovascular disorders. In adjusted analysis, AF was independently associated with an increased risk of short-term {p = 0.019, Hazard Ratio [(HR)] 1.236; 95% CI: 1.035-1.476} and long-term mortality (Log-rank p < 0.001) as compared to patients without AF. The use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in AF patients was associated with reduced short-term mortality (HR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.06-0.33, p < 0.001). Moreover, in AF patients, NOAC use was associated with a lower probability of MACEs (Odds Ratio 0.3; 95% CI: 0.10-0.89, p = 0.030) without increase of RBCs transfusion.

Conclusions

AF increases short- and long-term risk of death in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. However, the use of NOACs in this group may profoundly improve prognosis.

Pharmacology of Heparin and Related Drugs: An Update

Heparin has been used extensively as an antithrombotic and anticoagulant for close to 100 years. This anticoagulant activity is attributed mainly to the pentasaccharide sequence, which potentiates the inhibitory action of antithrombin, a major inhibitor of the coagulation cascade. More recently it has been elucidated that heparin exhibits anti-inflammatory effect via interference of the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps and this may also contribute to heparin's antithrombotic activity. This illustrates that heparin interacts with a broad range of biomolecules, exerting both anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant actions. Since our previous review, there has been an increased interest in these nonanticoagulant effects of heparin, with the beneficial role in patients infected with SARS2-coronavirus a highly topical example. This article provides an update on our previous review with more recent developments and observations made for these novel uses of heparin and an overview of the development status of heparin-based drugs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This state-of-the-art review covers recent developments in the use of heparin and heparin-like materials as anticoagulant, now including immunothrombosis observations, and as nonanticoagulant including a role in the treatment of SARS-coronavirus and inflammatory conditions.

Efficacy and safety of two heparin regimens for prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.

Autoimmune Diseases Affecting Hemostasis: A Narrative Review

Hemostasis reflects a homeostatic mechanism that aims to balance out pro-coagulant and anti-coagulant forces to maintain blood flow within the circulation. Simplistically, a relative excess of procoagulant forces can lead to thrombosis, and a relative excess of anticoagulant forces can lead to bleeding. There are a wide variety of congenital disorders associated with bleeding or thrombosis. In addition, there exist a vast array of autoimmune diseases that can also lead to either bleeding or thrombosis. For example, autoantibodies generated against clotting factors can lead to bleeding, of which acquired hemophilia A is the most common. As another example, autoimmune-mediated antibodies against phospholipids can generate a prothrombotic milieu in a condition known as antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS). Moreover, there exist various autoimmunity promoting environments that can lead to a variety of antibodies that affect hemostasis. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents perhaps the contemporary example of such a state, with potential development of a kaleidoscope of such antibodies that primarily drive thrombosis, but may also lead to bleeding on rarer occasions. We provide here a narrative review to discuss the interaction between various autoimmune diseases and hemostasis.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

The optimal anticoagulation strategy for COVID-19, prophylactic or therapeutic?: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression of more than 27,000 participants

Background

Anticoagulants are promising regimens for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, whether prophylactic or intermediate-to-therapeutic dosage is optimal remains under active discussion.

Methods

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials, and MedRxiv databases on April 26, 2022. Two independent researchers conducted literature selection and data extraction separately according to predetermined criteria. Notably, this is the first meta-analysis on COVID-19, taking serious consideration regarding the dosage overlap between the 2 comparison groups of prophylactic anticoagulation (PA) and intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation (I-TA).

Results

We included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 36 cohort studies with 27,051 COVID-19 patients. By analyzing all the RCTs, there was no significant difference in mortality between the PA and I-TA groups, which was further confirmed by trial sequential analysis (TSA) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–1.22; P = 0.61; TSA adjusted CI: 0.71–1.26). The rate of major bleeding was remarkably higher in the I-TA group than in the PA group, despite adjusting for TSA (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.15–2.60; P = 0.009; TSA adjusted CI: 1.09–2.58). RCTs have supported the beneficial effect of I-TA in reducing thrombotic events. After including all studies, mortality in the I-TA group was significantly higher than in the PA group (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.15–1.66; P = 0.0005). The rate of major bleeding was similar to the analysis from RCTs (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.86–2.69; P < 0.00001). There was no distinct difference in the rate of thrombotic events between the 2 regimen groups. In addition, in both critical and noncritical subgroups, I-TA failed to reduce mortality but increased major bleeding rate compared with PA, as shown in meta-analysis of all studies, as well as RCTs only. Meta-regression of all studies suggested that there was no relationship between the treatment effect and the overall risk of mortality or major bleeding (P = 0.14, P = 0.09, respectively).

Conclusion

I-TA is not superior to PA for treating COVID-19 because it fails to lower the mortality rate but increases the major bleeding rate in both critical and noncritical patients.

Effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation therapy on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review with an updated meta-analysis

Background

Previous studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial.

Methods

We systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity.

Results

We identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78–1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98–1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19–2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56–3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39–0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66–1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39–0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34–1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results.

Conclusions

In our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs.

Trial registration

Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-022-00408-9.

Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis Complicated by Multiple Splanchnic Venous Thromboses and Bilateral Renal Infarctions in a Patient With Recent COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is a well-known complication of pancreatitis, but extra-splanchnic thrombosis is rarely seen. We report a case of acute necrotizing pancreatitis complicated by portal vein thrombosis and resultant hepatic infarction, splenic vein thrombosis, bilateral renal infarction, and bowel hypoperfusion in an 81-year-old man with recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first documented case of such extensive intra-abdominal thromboses complicating severe acute pancreatitis. Despite multi-organ support and systemic anticoagulation, he deteriorated into multiple organ failure and died after 72 hours. He had no prior history of thrombotic disorders. COVID-19 infection can cause sustained prothrombotic changes, while severe acute pancreatitis also produces an inflammatory response that promotes coagulation. Together, the two concurrent disease processes may have resulted in the particularly extensive intra-abdominal thromboses and infarctions seen in this patient. Physicians should be mindful of the elevated risk of severe vascular complications in acute pancreatitis patients with concurrent or recent COVID-19 infection.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data

Introduction

Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients.

Methodology

This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms.

Results

A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively.

Conclusion

Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Low molecular weight heparin is associated with better outcomes than unfractionated heparin for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched several databases and included observational studies or clinical trials that compared the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of nine studies comprising 9637 patients were included. Metanalysis showed that LMWH administration was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality and 28/30-day mortality compared with UFH administration {[relative risk (RR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32-0.61; I2: 87.9%] and (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; I2: 78.4%), respectively}. Patient with LMWH had shorter duration of hospital and ICU length of stay compared with UFH {[weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.20; 95% CI -3.01 to -1.40; I2:0%] and (WMD -1.41; 95% CI -2.20 to -0.63; I2: 0%), respectively}. The risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation was lower in patients who received LMWH than in those who received UFH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.81; I2: 67.3%). However, there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-1.01; I2: 64.6%).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed that administration of LMWH was associated with better outcomes compared with UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective cohorts and RCTs are urgently needed to explore the definitive effect of LMWH to provide direct high-certainty evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021271977.

Prevalence of Hemorrhagic Complications in Hospitalized Patients with Pulmonary Embolism

Background: The prevalence of anticoagulant therapy-associated hemorrhagic complications in hospitalized patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) has been scarcely investigated. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of hemorrhages in hospitalized PE patients. Methods: The Information System “ASKLIPIOS™ HOSPITAL” implemented in the Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Thessaly, was used to collect demographic, clinical and outcome data from January 2013 to April 2021. Results: 326 patients were included. Males outnumbered females. The population’s mean age was 68.7 ± 17.0 years. The majority received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Only 5% received direct oral anticoagulants. 15% of the population were complicated with hemorrhage, of whom 18.4% experienced a major event. Major hemorrhages were fewer than minor (29.8% vs. 70.2%, p = 0.001). Nadroparin related to 83.3% of the major events. Hematuria was the most common hemorrhagic event. 22% of patients with major events received a transfusion, and 11% were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). The events lasted for 3 ± 2 days. No death was recorded. Conclusions: 1/5 of the patients hospitalized for PE complicated with hemorrhage without a fatal outcome. The hemorrhages were mainly minor and lasted for 3 ± 2 days. Among LMWHs, nadroparin was related to a higher percentage of hemorrhages.

Genomic Analysis of Thrombophilia Variants in the General Population for the Creation of an Effective Preoperative Screening Tool

BACKGROUND

 The loss of a free flap in reconstructive microsurgery is a devastating complication in both the intraoperative and postoperative setting. Previous research has identified a variety of genetic polymorphisms that induce a hypercoagulable state and predispose patients to clot formation and subsequent free flap loss. We aim to review the risks of performing microsurgery on patients who are genetically predisposed to hypercoagulability, as well as identify options, for preoperative screening of inherited thrombophilia.

METHODS

 A thorough literature review was conducted with an online database. A total of 30 studies were reviewed to identify genetic polymorphisms that cause inherited thrombophilia. Through manual review of the literature, a table was created that included thrombotic risk factors and their associated genetic polymorphisms. If the information was available, prevalence for each thrombotic risk was also reported.

RESULTS

 Overall, 18 thrombotic risk factors that contribute to hereditary thrombophilia were identified and linked with specific genes and/or genetic polymorphisms. In studies that did not look at particular ethnic groups, 13 unique thrombotic risk factors were identified. In studies that examined specific ethnic groups exclusively, 12 thrombotic risk factors were identified and related to their respective gene or group of genes. Five of the 18 thrombotic risk factors identified were associated with increased risks of both venous and arterial thrombosis. The remainder of the thrombotic risk factors was associated with increased risk of venous thrombosis exclusively.

CONCLUSION

 The use of genetic screening tests for hereditary thrombophilia in the preoperative setting can serve as an effective preventative measure against postoperative thrombosis. Further exploration of thrombotic risk factors and their related genetic polymorphisms are important steps in reducing postoperative free flap loss.

The Role of Heparin in COVID-19: An Update after Two Years of Pandemics

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and coagulopathy, especially in critically ill patients. Endothelial damage induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as a crucial pathogenetic mechanism for the development of complications in an acute phase of the illness and for several postdischarge sequalae. Heparin has been shown to have a positive impact on COVID-19 due to its anticoagulant function. Moreover, several other biological actions of heparin were postulated: a potential anti-inflammatory and antiviral effect through the main protease (Mpro) and heparansulfate (HS) binding and a protection from the damage of vascular endothelial cells. In this paper, we reviewed available evidence on heparin treatment in COVID-19 acute illness and chronic sequalae, focusing on the difference between prophylactic and therapeutic dosage.

Effects of low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux on mortality, hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients

Background:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased thrombosis prevalence. However, there are insufficient data supporting the appropriate anticoagulation dose in COVID-19.

Objective:

We aim to systematically assess the currently available data regarding the effects of different dosing regimens of low molecular weight heparin and/or fondaparinux (LMWH/F) on mortality risk as well as the risk of arterial/venous thrombotic events and hemorrhagic complications in confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Design:

We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of different LMWH/F doses on mortality, thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in COVID-19 patients.

Data Sources and Methods:

MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to detect observational cohort studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing difference doses of LMWH/F among confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Results:

Thirty-one eligible studies (6 RCTs and 25 cohort studies) with 11,430 hospitalized patients were included. No association was found between LMWH/F and mortality during the following comparisons: (1) no LMWH/F versus any LMWH/F; (2) prophylactic versus higher than prophylactic LMWH/F; (3) prophylactic versus therapeutic LMWH/F; (4) intermediate versus therapeutic LMWH/F; and (5) lower than therapeutic versus therapeutic LMWH/F. Mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic versus intermediate LMWH/F (OR = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.19–3.39). However, this effect was mostly driven by observational data. No associations were detected between the intensity of LMWH/F and the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, except the lower risk for hemorrhage in patients on prophylactic compared to higher LMWH/F doses.

Conclusion:

The risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic LMWH/F compared to those on an intermediate dose of LMWH/F, based on observational data. These results should be interpreted in light of the moderate quality and heterogeneity of the included studies.

Registration:

The study protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021229771).

Pentosan polysulfate inhibits attachment and infection by SARS-CoV-2 in vitro: insights into structural requirements for binding

Two years since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic, there remain few clinically effective drugs to complement vaccines. One is the anticoagulant, heparin, which in 2004 was found able to inhibit invasion of SARS-CoV (CoV-1) and which has been employed during the current pandemic to prevent thromboembolic complications and moderate potentially damaging inflammation. Heparin has also been shown experimentally to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 attachment and infection in susceptible cells. At high therapeutic doses however, heparin increases the risk of bleeding and prolonged use can cause heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a serious side effect. One alternative, with structural similarities to heparin, is the plant-derived, semi-synthetic polysaccharide, pentosan polysulfate (PPS). PPS is an established drug for the oral treatment of interstitial cystitis, is well-tolerated, and exhibits weaker anticoagulant effects than heparin. In an established Vero cell model, PPS and its fractions of varying molecular weights inhibited invasion by SARS-CoV-2. Intact PPS and its size-defined fractions were characterized by molecular weight distribution and chemical structure using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, then employed to explore the structural basis of interactions with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (S1 RBD) and the inhibition of Vero cell invasion. PPS was as effective as unfractionated heparin, but more effective in inhibiting cell infection than low-molecular-weight heparin (on a weight/volume basis). Isothermal titration calorimetry and viral plaque-forming assays demonstrated size-dependent binding to S1 RBD and inhibition of Vero cell invasion, suggesting the potential application of PPS as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Anticoagulation strategies in critically-ill SARS-CoV-2 patients: the role of direct thrombin inhibitors

Objectives

To compare heparin-based anticoagulation and bivalirudin-based anticoagulation within the context of critically ill patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Design

An observational study.

Setting

At the intensive care unit of a university hospital.

Participants and Interventions

Critically ill patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving full anticoagulation with heparin or bivalirudin.

Measurements and Main Results

Twenty-three patients received full anticoagulation with bivalirudin and 60 with heparin. Despite patients in the bivalirudin group having higher mortality risk scores (SAPS II 60 ± 16 v 39 ±7, p < 0.001) and a higher need for extracorporeal support compared to the heparin group, hospital mortality was comparable (57% v 45, p = 0.3). No difference in thromboembolic complications was observed, and bleeding events were more frequent in patients treated with bivalirudin (65% v 40%, p = 0.01). Similar results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing intravenous anticoagulation; in addition to comparable thrombotic complications occurrence and thrombocytopenia rate, however, no difference in the bleeding rate was observed (65% v 35%, p = 0.08).

Conclusions

Although heparin is the most used anticoagulant in the intensive care setting, bivalirudin-based anticoagulation was safe and effective in a cohort of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. Bivalirudin may be given full consideration as an anticoagulation strategy for critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2, especially in those with thrombocytopenia and on extracorporeal support.

The Composition and Physical Properties of Clots in COVID-19 Pathology

Hemostasis is a finely tuned process of which dysregulation can lead either to bleeding or thrombotic complications. The latter is often caused by the hypercoagulable state as it is also seen in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, i.e., in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization often suffer from thrombotic events that could not be predicted using routine coagulation assays. Recently, several studies have reported ROtational ThromboElastoMetry (ROTEM) as a promising tool to predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients. In this review we give an overview of ROTEM with a particular focus on the interpretation of the symmetrical clot formation curve in relation to coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we have introduced new parameters that might help to better distinguish between COVID-19 patients and outcomes.

Neurogenesis and Viral Infection

Neural stem cells (NSCs) are multipotent stem cells that reside in the fetal and adult mammalian brain, which can self-renew and differentiate into neurons and supporting cells. Intrinsic and extrinsic cues, from cells in the local niche and from distant sites, stringently orchestrates the self-renewal and differentiation competence of NSCs. Ample evidence supports the important role of NSCs in neuroplasticity, aging, disease, and repair of the nervous system. Indeed, activation of NSCs or their transplantation into injured areas of the central nervous system can lead to regeneration in animal models. Viral invasion of NSCs can negatively affect neurogenesis and synaptogenesis, with consequent cell death, impairment of cell cycle progression, early differentiation, which cause neural progenitors depletion in the cortical layer of the brain. Herein, we will review the current understanding of Zika virus (ZIKV) infection of the fetal brain and the NSCs, which are the preferential population targeted by ZIKV. Furthermore, the potential neurotropic properties of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which may cause direct neurological damage, will be discussed.

Editor's Choice - Update of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Acute Limb Ischaemia in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To perform a scoping review of how patients with COVID-19 are affected by acute limb ischaemia (ALI) and evaluate the recommendations of the 2020 ESVS ALI Guidelines for these patients.

METHODS

Research questions were defined, and a systematic literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Abstracts and unpublished literature were not included. The definition of ALI in this review is in accordance with the ESVS guidelines.

RESULTS

Most identified papers were case reports or case series, although population based data and data from randomised controlled trials were also identified. In total, 114 unique and relevant papers were retrieved. Data were conflicting concerning whether the incidence of ALI increased, or remained unchanged, during the pandemic. Case reports and series reported ALI in patients who were younger and healthier than usual, with a greater proportion affecting the upper limb. Whether or not this is coincidental remains uncertain. The proportion of men/women affected seems unchanged. Most reported cases were in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with ALI as their first manifestation of COVID-19 were reported. Patients with ALI have a worse outcome if they have a simultaneous COVID-19 infection. High levels of D-dimer may predict the occurrence of arterial thromboembolic events in patients with COVID-19. Heparin resistance was observed. Anticoagulation should be given to hospitalised COVID-19 patients in prophylactic dosage. Most of the treatment recommendations from the ESVS Guidelines remained relevant, but the following were modified regarding patients with COVID-19 and ALI: 1) CTA imaging before revascularisation should include the entire aorta and iliac arteries; 2) there should be a high index of suspicion, early testing for COVID-19 infection and protective measures are advised; and 3) there should be preferential use of local or locoregional anaesthesia during revascularisation.

CONCLUSION

Although the epidemiology of ALI has changed during the pandemic, the recommendations of the ESVS ALI Guidelines remain valid. The above mentioned minor modifications should be considered in patients with COVID-19 and ALI.

Assessment of Healthcare Resource Utilization by Anticoagulant Heparinoid Dosage Level in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The aim was to describe inpatients with COVID-19 empirically prescribed heparinoid anticoagulants and compare resource utilization between prophylactic/low-dose and therapeutic/high-dose groups. Methods: This retrospective observational study used real-world data from 880 US hospitals in the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database during 4/1/2020–11/30/2020. Descriptive analysis was used to characterize patients. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and costs by anticoagulation dose group, adjusting for cohort characteristics. Among 122,508 inpatients, 29,225 (23.9%) received therapeutic/high-dose, and 93,283 (76.1%) received prophylactic/low-dose anticoagulation. The high-dose group had more comorbidities and worse laboratory values compared with low-dose. Respectively, ICU admission rates were 36.7% and 19.1% and LOS median (Q1, Q3) was 8 (5, 15) and 5 (3, 9) days. In separate adjusted models, high-dose anticoagulation was associated with a 45% increase in odds of ICU admission, 26% increase in odds of in-hospital mortality, 21% longer average LOS, and 28% greater average total cost compared with low-dose (each P < 0.001). Prophylactic/low-dose anticoagulation treatment was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OUP accepted manuscript

SARS-CoV-2 manifestations have been an ongoing evolving topic that has spread beyond its initial respiratory associations. Recently, there have been reports of COVID-19 infections found to be associated with vascular pathologies. Here, we describe a case of a fully vaccinated COVID-19 adult male with past medical history of purpura fulminans that presented with diffuse necrotic cutaneous tissue sequelae resulting in intensive care unit management and dry gangrene of upper extremity. On admission, it was found that the patient had decreased activity rather than quantity of coagulation pathway protein S. Early recognition and work up are essential in patients with known history of vascular disease and confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 positive polymerase chain reaction.

Safety and Efficacy of Intermediate- and Therapeutic-Dose Anticoagulation for Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear.

METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.

An update on drugs with therapeutic potential for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st century with more than 257 million cases and over 5.17 million deaths reported worldwide (as of November 23, 2021. Various agents were initially proclaimed to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin are all examples of therapeutic agents, whose efficacy against COVID-19 was later disproved. Meanwhile, concentrated efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide have led to the identification of novel therapeutic options to control the disease including PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332). Although COVID-19 cases are currently treated using a comprehensive approach of anticoagulants, oxygen, and antibiotics, the novel Pfizer agent PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332), an investigational COVID-19 oral antiviral candidate, significantly reduced hospitalization time and death rates, based on an interim analysis of the phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis demonstrated an 89 % reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint). However, there still exists a great need for the development of additional treatments, as the recommended therapeutic options are insufficient in many cases. Thus far, mRNA and vector vaccines appear to be the most effective modalities to control the pandemic. In the current review, we provide an update on the progress that has been made since April 2020 in clinical trials concerning the effectiveness of therapies available to combat COVID-19. We focus on currently recommended therapeutic agents, including steroids, various monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, baricitinib, anticoagulants and PAXLOVID™ summarizing the latest original studies and meta-analyses. Moreover, we aim to discuss other currently and previously studied agents targeting COVID-19 that either show no or only limited therapeutic activity. The results of recent studies report that hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma demonstrate no efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lastly, we summarize the studies on various drugs with incoherent or insufficient data concerning their effectiveness, such as amantadine, ivermectin, or niclosamide.

High versus Standard Intensity of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

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.

Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Around the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high rate of respiratory failure, thromboembolism, bleeding, and death. Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are prone to both thrombosis and bleeding, calling for special care during COVID-19. We reviewed the clinical features of MPN patients with COVID-19, suggesting guidance for treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

One study by the European LeukemiaNet collected 175 MPN patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, from February to May 2020. Patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) were at higher risk of mortality (48%) in comparison with essential thrombocythemia (ET) (25%) and polycythemia vera (19%); the risk of death was higher in those patients who abruptly discontinued ruxolitinib. In patients followed at home, in regular wards, or in ICU, the thrombosis rate was 1.0%, 2.8%, and 18.4%, respectively. Independent risk factors for thrombosis were ET phenotype, transfer to ICU, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; major bleeding occurred in 4.3% of patients, particularly those with PMF. MPN patients with non-severe COVID-19 treated at home should continue their primary or secondary antithrombotic prophylaxis with aspirin or oral anticoagulants. In the case of hospitalization, patients assuming aspirin should add low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at standard doses. In contrast, LMWH at intermediate/therapeutic doses should replace oral anticoagulants prescribed for atrial fibrillation or previous venous thromboembolism. Intermediate/high doses of LMWH can also be considered in ICU patients with ET, particularly in the case of a rapid decline in the number of platelets and progressive respiratory failure.

Safety and efficacy of different prophylactic anticoagulation dosing regimens in critically and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The clinical impact of different prophylactic anticoagulation regimens among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We pooled evidence from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide insights on this topic.

Methods and results

We searched for RCTs comparing treatment with an escalated-dose (intermediate-dose or therapeutic-dose) vs. a standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation regimen in critically and non-critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization and without a formal indication for anticoagulation. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause death, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Seven RCTs were identified, including 5154 patients followed on an average of 33 days. Compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, escalated-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction of all-cause death [17.8% vs. 18.6%; risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.18] but was associated with an increase in major bleeding (2.4% vs. 1.4%; RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.15–2.60). Compared to prophylactic anticoagulation used at a standard dose, an escalated dose was associated with lower rates of venous thromboembolism (2.5% vs. 4.7%; RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41–0.74) without a significant effect on myocardial infarction (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.47–1.36), stroke (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.43–2.09), or systemic arterial embolism (RR 1.20, 95%CI 0.29–4.95). There were no significant interactions in the subgroup analysis for critically and non-critically ill patients.

Conclusions

Our findings provide comprehensive and high-quality evidence for the use of standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation over an escalated-dose regimen as routine standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have an indication for therapeutic anticoagulation, irrespective of disease severity.

Study registration

This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021257203).