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).

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 / Ortega-Paz, Luis; Galli, Mattia; Capodanno, Davide; Franchi, Francesco; Rollini, Fabiana; Bikdeli, Behnood; Mehran, Roxana; Montalescot, Gilles; Michael Gibson, C; D Lopes, Renato; Andreotti, Felicita; J Angiolillo, Dominick. - In: EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL. CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOTHERAPY. - ISSN 2055-6845. - 8:7(2022), pp. 677-686. [10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab070]

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

Mattia Galli;
2022

Abstract

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).
2022
anticoagulant therapy; bleeding; coronavirus disease 2019; death; thrombosis.
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
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 / Ortega-Paz, Luis; Galli, Mattia; Capodanno, Davide; Franchi, Francesco; Rollini, Fabiana; Bikdeli, Behnood; Mehran, Roxana; Montalescot, Gilles; Michael Gibson, C; D Lopes, Renato; Andreotti, Felicita; J Angiolillo, Dominick. - In: EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL. CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOTHERAPY. - ISSN 2055-6845. - 8:7(2022), pp. 677-686. [10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab070]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Ortega-Paz_Safety_2022.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 953.69 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
953.69 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1716412
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 41
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact