Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial

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

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

Prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to investigate the impact of prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic-dose DOACs with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 until September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events, while major bleeding events were the primary safety outcome. We expressed continuous outcome data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and dichotomous outcome data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

Results

We included six RCTs involving 4307 patients. Prophylactic-dose DOAC therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with significantly decreased risks of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events (1.43% vs 2.67% (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.82, P = 0.004, I2 = 3%)). Major bleeding events were infrequent, and we detected no significant differences between patients assigned to prophylactic-dose DOACs vs placebo or no treatment (0.19% vs 0.05% (RR = 2.50; 95% CI = 0.49-12.87, P = 0.27, I2 = 0%)). The use of prophylactic-dose DOACs was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism, with no difference in all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, hospitalisations, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding between two groups. Sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method for the primary efficacy and safety outcome did not change the effect estimate substantially.

Conclusions

We found that prophylaxis-dose DOACs could significantly improve clinical outcomes and reduce venous thrombotic events without increasing the risk of major bleeding events compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023466889.

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

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

Rivaroxaban Plasma Concentration and Clinical Outcomes on Older Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Pulmonary Infection

INTRODUCTION

Infection may induce thrombotic and hemorrhagic events; however, it is currently unclear whether the inflammatory response affects the coagulation function and the clinical efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in older patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

OBJECTIVE

This project aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban in older patients with NVAF complicated by infection, and to provide a basis for possible drug dose adjustment.

METHODS

A total of 152 NVAF patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to the Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai from June 2020 to May 2022 were included in this prospective, observational study. The changes in steady-state plasma concentration of rivaroxaban and FXa inhibition rate were compared between patients with and without infection, and the impact on the occurrence of infection, thrombotic events, and bleeding events was compared through 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Our results showed that patients in the infection group had abnormal inflammation markers, as well as an increased occurrence of bleeding and thrombotic events during hospitalization and follow-up. The high incidence of bleeding events in patients was closely related to the occurrence of infection, lymphocyte reduction, and increased neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. The increase in thrombotic events was related to a decrease in rivaroxaban plasma concentration. Bleeding events in patients taking anticoagulant drugs are not necessarily due to drug accumulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely control of infection, assessment of bleeding and thrombotic risks, and selection of appropriate anticoagulation treatment strategies should be made in older NVAF patients who develop pulmonary infection.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Number ChiCTR2000033144.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Aims

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

Methods and results

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

Conclusion

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