Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Tinzaparin—a review of its molecular profile, pharmacology, special properties, and clinical uses

Purpose

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are a group of heterogenous moieties, long used in the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. They derive from heparin and since they are prepared by different methods of depolymerization, they differ in pharmacokinetic properties and anticoagulant profiles, and thus are not clinically interchangeable.

Methods

In this review we provide an overview of tinzaparin's main characteristics and uses.

Results

Tinzaparin which is produced by the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be used for the treatment and prevention of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE); it has been also used in special populations such as elders, obese, pregnant women, and patients with renal impairment and/or cancer with favorable outcomes in both safety and efficacy, with a once daily dose regimen. Furthermore, LMWHs are extensively used in clinical practice for both thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Tinzaparin features support the hypothesis for having a role in immunothrombosis treatment (i.e. in the context of cancer ,COVID-19), interfering not only with coagulation cascade but also exhibiting anti-inflammatory potency.

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.

Randomized trials of therapeutic heparin for COVID-19: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77). Organ support-free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions with illness severity for all-cause death (P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

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.

Fundamental and Advanced Therapies, Vaccine Development against SARS-CoV-2

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been affecting the world since the end of 2019. The severity of the disease can range from an asymptomatic or mild course to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with respiratory failure, which may lead to death. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, scientists around the world have been studying the genome and molecular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection to develop effective therapies and prevention. In this review, we summarize the progressive development of various treatments and vaccines as they have emerged, a year after the outbreak of the pandemic. Initially for COVID-19, patients were recommended drugs with presumed antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial effects that were previously used to treat other diseases. Thereafter, therapeutic interventions were supplemented with promising approaches based on antibodies, peptides, and stem cells. However, licensed COVID-19 vaccines remain the most effective weapon in combating the pandemic. While there is an enormous effort to enhance the vaccination rate to increase the entire population immunity, the production and delivery of vaccines is becoming limited in several countries. In this regard, there are new challenges needing to be addressed by combining non-pharmacological intervention with effective therapies until vaccination is accessible to all.

The HEP-COVID Trial

Collapse