Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19

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.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Managing Covid-19 in patients with heart failure: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 may contribute to decompensation of previously stable chronic HF or cause a de-novo heart failure, which may come from the hyperinflammatory response and subsequent increase in metabolic demand.

AREAS COVERED

Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Europe PMC, and ScienceDirect databases with the following search terms: COVID-19, heart failure, COVID-19 drugs, heart failure drugs, and device therapy. All of the included full-text articles were rigorously evaluated by both authors in case there was disagreement about whether research should be included or not. In total, 157 studies were included and underwent extensive reading by the authors.

EXPERT OPINION

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) have published COVID-19 drug recommendations, although recommendations for HF-specific drug choices in COVID-19 are still lacking. We hope that this review can answer the void of comprehensive research data regarding the management options of HF in the COVID-19 condition so that clinicians can at least choose a more beneficial therapy or avoid combination therapies that have a high burden of side effects on HF; thus, morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients with HF may be reduced.

Pharmacotherapy consideration of thrombolytic medications in COVID-19-associated ARDS

BACKGROUND

In late 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which is responsible for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), was identified as the new pathogen to lead pneumonia in Wuhan, China, which has spread all over the world and developed into a pandemic. Despite the over 1 year of pandemic, due to the lack of an effective treatment plan, the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 remains high. Efforts are underway to find the optimal management for this viral disease.

MAIN BODY

SARS-CoV-2 could simultaneously affect multiple organs with variable degrees of severity, from mild to critical disease. Overproduction of pro-inflammatory mediators, exacerbated cellular and humoral immune responses, and coagulopathy such as Pulmonary Intravascular Coagulopathy (PIC) contributes to cell injuries. Considering the pathophysiology of the disease and multiple microthrombi developments in COVID-19, thrombolytic medications seem to play a role in the management of the disease. Beyond the anticoagulation, the exact role of thrombolytic medications in the management of patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not explicit. This review focuses on current progress in underlying mechanisms of COVID-19-associated pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy, the historical use of thrombolytic drugs in the management of ARDS, and pharmacotherapy considerations of thrombolytic therapy, their possible benefits, and pitfalls in COVID-19-associated ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled or intravenous administration of thrombolytics appears to be a salvage therapy for severe ARDS associated with COVID-19 by prompt attenuation of lung injury. Considering the pathogenesis of COVID-19-related ARDS and mechanism of action of thrombolytic agents, thrombolytics appear attractive options in stable patients without contraindications.

Full Characterization of Thrombotic Events in All Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital during the First 18 Months of the Pandemic

The presence of a procoagulant state, COVID-19-related coagulopathy, and an increased rate of thrombotic events (TEs) is widely known about. However, descriptive studies are scarce. Here, we conducted a large retrospective study including 2894 hospitalized COVID-19 patients followed up during the first 18 months of the pandemic to completely characterize any TE. Major TEs showed a 3.45% incidence rate. TEs were associated with increased intubation/90-day mortality risk [OR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.12−2.61), p < 0.013]. Venous thrombotic events (VTEs) were more frequent than arterial thrombotic events (ATEs) (72% vs. 28%), associated with enhanced levels of D-dimer (cross-linked fibrin derivatives formed during thrombolysis), which were related to mortality but more useful for early detection of thrombosis. In this regard, D-dimer plasma levels above 2014 µg/mL at hospital admission identify TEs with 91% accuracy (AUC = 0.91, p < 0.001), rising to almost 95% (AUC = 0.94, p < 0.001) with a cut-off value of 2666 µg/mL in VTEs. Moreover, 41% of TEs occurred in patients receiving LMWH thromboprophylactic treatments in hospital or domiciliary therapies. SARS-CoV-2 infection along with a sedentary lifestyle derived from the confinement in 2020 could be more determinant than a procoagulant state in patients with risk factors for TEs. Furthermore, the normal results obtained from the thrombophilia study after the acute process are linked to this independent procoagulant state and to SARS-CoV-2-derived coagulopathy.

Assessment of Bleeding Risk in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Tertiary Hospital Experience during the Pandemic in a Predominant Minority Population-Bleeding Risk Factors in COVID-19 Patients

Introduction: In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, our world has faced multiple challenges. Infection with this virus has commonly been associated with thrombotic events. However, little is known about bleeding risk and anticoagulation therapy. This study aims to determine factors that are associated with increased risk of bleeding in COVID-19 patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the records of COVID-19 patients admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 through May 2020. Using patient charts, investigators manually collected data regarding patient characteristics and bleeding. Patients were included in the analysis if they had a confirmed COVID-19 PCR test, were older than 18 years of age and were admitted to the hospital. Patients who were pregnant or had incomplete charts were excluded from the study. ANOVA and logistic regression were used to determine the statistical significance of the data using SPSS version 27. Results: A total of 651 patients were included in the analysis out of 685 patients located in the database of COVID-19 infected patients during that time frame. The general characteristics of the patients were as follows: 54.2% were males; females 45.8% ages ranged from 28 to 83 years old (median age = 66 years old). There were 31 patients (4.9%) who required more than 1 unit of packed red blood cell (PRBC). A total of 16 (2.85%) patients had a documented gastrointestinal bleed (GIB), of which 8 received a total of 29 units of PRBC transfusions. The HAS-BLED score (without alcohol/drug due to inadequate charting) is calculated for patients who had a documented GI bleed and who received more than one unit of PRBC. It was noted that the higher the HAS-BLED score the greater the likelihood of having a GI bleed (p < 0.001). The HAS-BLED score (not including alcohol/drug) was also predictive for patients who received more than one unit of PRBC during their hospital stay (p < 0.001). Discussion: Using the HAS-BLED score without alcohol/drugs, patients with COVID-19 can be stratified in regard to their risk of GI bleeding and their risk of transfusion while in the hospital. When administering anticoagulation therapy, cautious monitoring should be carried out. Decisions regarding anticoagulant therapy should be based on individual patient characteristics.

Long COVID: post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 with a cardiovascular focus

Emerging as a new epidemic, long COVID or post-acute sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a condition characterized by the persistence of COVID-19 symptoms beyond 3 months, is anticipated to substantially alter the lives of millions of people globally. Cardiopulmonary symptoms including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and autonomic manifestations such as postural orthostatic tachycardia are common and associated with significant disability, heightened anxiety, and public awareness. A range of cardiovascular (CV) abnormalities has been reported among patients beyond the acute phase and include myocardial inflammation, myocardial infarction, right ventricular dysfunction, and arrhythmias. Pathophysiological mechanisms for delayed complications are still poorly understood, with a dissociation seen between ongoing symptoms and objective measures of cardiopulmonary health. COVID-19 is anticipated to alter the long-term trajectory of many chronic cardiac diseases which are abundant in those at risk of severe disease. In this review, we discuss the definition of long COVID and its epidemiology, with an emphasis on cardiopulmonary symptoms. We further review the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying acute and chronic CV injury, the range of post-acute CV sequelae, and impact of COVID-19 on multiorgan health. We propose a possible model for referral of post-COVID-19 patients to cardiac services and discuss future directions including research priorities and clinical trials that are currently underway to evaluate the efficacy of treatment strategies for long COVID and associated CV sequelae.

Immunomonitoring of Monocyte and Neutrophil Function in Critically Ill Patients: From Sepsis and/or Trauma to COVID-19

Immune cells and mediators play a crucial role in the critical care setting but are understudied. This review explores the concept of sepsis and/or injury-induced immunosuppression and immuno-inflammatory response in COVID-19 and reiterates the need for more accurate functional immunomonitoring of monocyte and neutrophil function in these critically ill patients. in addition, the feasibility of circulating and cell-surface immune biomarkers as predictors of infection and/or outcome in critically ill patients is explored. It is clear that, for critically ill, one size does not fit all and that immune phenotyping of critically ill patients may allow the development of a more personalized approach with tailored immunotherapy for the specific patient. In addition, at this point in time, caution is advised regarding the quality of evidence of some COVID-19 studies in the literature.

Therapeutic Options for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Where Are We Now?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rapidly evolving treatment paradigms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduce challenges for clinicians to keep up with the pace of published literature and to critically appraise the voluminous data produced. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from key studies examining the place of therapy of recommended drugs and management strategies for COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

The global magnitude and duration of the pandemic have resulted in a flurry of interventional treatment trials evaluating both novel and repurposed drugs targeting various aspects of the viral life cycle. Additionally, clinical observations have documented various stages or phases of COVID-19 and underscored the importance of timing for the efficacy of studied therapies. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many observational, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies have been conducted to guide management of COVID-19 using drug therapies and other management strategies. Large, randomized, or adaptive platform trials have proven the most informative to guide recommended treatments to-date. Antimicrobial stewardship programs can play a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate use of COVID-19 therapies based on evolving clinical data and limiting unnecessary antibiotics given low rates of co-infection.

SUMMARY

Given the rapidly evolving medical literature and treatment paradigms, it is recommended to reference continuously updated, curated guidelines from national and international sources. While the drugs and management strategies mentioned in this review represent the current state of recommendations, many therapies are still under investigation to further define optimal COVID-19 treatment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11908-021-00769-8.

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

IMPORTANCE

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

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.

The Impact of Risk-Adjusted Heparin Regimens on the Outcome of Patients with COVID-19 Infection. A Prospective Cohort Study

Background. According to recent guidelines, all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), unless there are specific contraindications. However, the optimal preventive strategy in terms of intensity of anticoagulation for these patients is not well established. Objectives. To investigate the impact of individualized regimens of enoxaparin on the development of VTE and on the risk of major bleeding complications during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods. All consecutive patients admitted to the medical wards of six Italian hospitals between 15 September and 15 October 2020 with COVID-19 infection of moderate severity were administered enoxaparin in subcutaneous daily doses adjusted to the Padua Prediction Score stratification model: No heparin in patients scoring less than 4, 4000 IU daily in those scoring 4, 6000 IU in those scoring 5, and 8000 in those scoring six or more. Objective tests were performed in patients developing clinical symptoms of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding complications were defined according to the ISTH classification. Results. From the 154 eligible patients, enoxaparin was administered in all: 4000 IU in 73 patients, 6000 IU in 53, and 8000 IU in the remaining 28. During the course of hospitalization, 27 patients (17.5%) died. VTE developed in 14 of the 154 patients (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.6% to 13.6%), and was fatal in 1. Major bleeding complications developed in 35 patients (22.7%; 95% CI, 16.1% to 29.3%), and were fatal in 8. Conclusions. Despite the use of risk-adjusted doses of enoxaparin, the rate of VTE events was consistent with that reported in contemporary studies where fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was used. The unexpectedly high risk of bleeding complications should induce caution in administering enoxaparin in doses higher than the conventional low ones.