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.


Journal

European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy
ISSN: 2055-6845
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101669491

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Sep 2022
Historique:
received: 20 07 2021
revised: 25 08 2021
accepted: 11 09 2021
pubmed: 15 9 2021
medline: 1 10 2022
entrez: 14 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021257203).

Sections du résumé

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).

Identifiants

pubmed: 34519777
pii: 6370175
doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab070
pmc: PMC8499924
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anticoagulants 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

677-686

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Auteurs

Luis Ortega-Paz (L)

Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona 08036, Spain.

Mattia Galli (M)

Cardiovascular Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, ACC Building 5th floor, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.

Davide Capodanno (D)

Division of Cardiology, A.O.U. "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele," University of Catania, Catania 95124, Italy.

Francesco Franchi (F)

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, ACC Building 5th floor, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.

Fabiana Rollini (F)

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, ACC Building 5th floor, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.

Behnood Bikdeli (B)

Cardiovascular Medicine Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF), New York, NY 10019, USA.

Roxana Mehran (R)

Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.

Gilles Montalescot (G)

Sorbonne Université, ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie (Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris) Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, INSERM UMRS 1166, Paris 75013, France.

C Michael Gibson (CM)

Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

Renato D Lopes (RD)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Cardiovascular Division, Brazilian Clinical Research Institute, São Paulo, 01404-000, Brazil.

Felicita Andreotti (F)

Cardiovascular Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Italy.

Dominick J Angiolillo (DJ)

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, ACC Building 5th floor, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH