Anticoagulation in COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Rapid Guidance From Mayo Clinic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McBane RD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458092 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Anticoagulation in COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Rapid Guidance From Mayo Clinic.
McBane Robert D RD Torres Roldan Victor D VD Niven Alexander S AS Pruthi Rajiv K RK Franco Pablo Moreno PM Linderbaum Jane A JA Casanegra Ana I AI Oyen Lance J LJ Houghton Damon E DE Marshall Ariela L AL Ou Narith N NN Siegel Jason L JL Wysokinski Waldemar E WE Padrnos Leslie J LJ Rivera Candido E CE Flo Gayle L GL Shamoun Fadi E FE Silvers Scott M SM Nayfeh Tarek T Urtecho Meritxell M Shah Sahrish S Benkhadra Raed R Saadi Samer Mohir SM Firwana Mohammed M Jawaid Tabinda T Amin Mustapha M Prokop Larry J LJ Murad M Hassan MH
Mayo Clinic proceedings 20200831 11
A higher risk of thrombosis has been described as a prominent feature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review synthesizes current data on thrombosis risk, prognostic implications, and anticoagulation effects in COVID-19. We included 37 studies from 4070 unique citations. Meta-analysis was performed when feasible. Coagulopathy and thrombotic events were frequent among patients with COVID-19 and further increased in those with more severe forms of the disease. We also presen ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.Material and methodsThis report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).ResultsFor this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74).ConclusionsHospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.
| S-EPMC9451936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: It is well-established that clinical pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services achieve superior anticoagulation control, with a positive impact. At King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the structure of anticoagulation management is a pharmacist-managed specialty service. With the current COVID-19 situation, measures were taken to assure the continuity of patient care by establishing tele-pharmacy anticoagulation clinics. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study with patients prescribed anticoagulation and followed up for 3 months. Since establishing the anticoagulation virtual clinic in March 2020, 270 patients were recruited in the study. The data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, indication for anticoagulation, intended duration of treatment, warfarin dose, testing of International Normalized Ratio (INR), INR target, range of INR values, time INR that was within the therapeutic range (TTR), and complications of therapy (bleeding and/or bruises). The patients were asked to complete the pharmacist satisfaction survey (PSS) after their consultation to assess patient satisfaction with the new virtual consultation system. Linguistic and cultural validation was conducted for the questionnaire. Results: A total of 270 patients were included in the study. The mean percentage of overall INR values in the range was 59.39% ± 32.84, and the mean time with the overall INR was within the therapeutic range 57.81% ± 32.08. Thirty-one percent of the sample had good anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range >70%). The median satisfaction score was 32 (IQR 28-36) with a maximum score of 40. Conclusion: This is the first study to assess the tele-pharmacy anticoagulation clinic's efficiency and patient satisfaction in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This type of consultation was as effective as face-to-face consultations. The study also highlighted that though the reduction in the cost of care was not substantial, there was a significant increase in resource (clinical pharmacist) utilization as a result of this model. The adoption of tele-pharmacy resulted in time savings for the clinical pharmacists who can be utilized in many other improvement projects in adult ambulatory clinics to ensure the delivery of better quality and safe patient care.
| S-EPMC8459665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models.ResultsA total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care.ConclusionMayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7831394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Implementation of higher dose (HD) thromboprophylaxis has been considered in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to compare HD to standard dose (SD) thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021284808). We searched for randomised controlled studies (CENTRAL, Embase, Medline and medRxviv) that compared HD to SD anticoagulation in COVID-19 and analysed outcomes such as mortality, thrombotic events, bleedings, and disease progression. The statistical analyses were made using the random effects model. Fourteen articles were included (6253 patients). HD compared with SD showed no difference in mortality (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.54-1.28]). The use of HD was associated with a decreased risk of thrombosis (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.44-0.76]), although with an increased risk of major bleeding (OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.25-2.16]). The cohort with D-dimer < 1 mg/mL showed no effect (OR 1.19 [95% CI 0.67-2.11]), but in the case of D-dimer > 1 mg/mL, a tendency of lower risk in the HD group was observed (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.31-1.00]). The need for intubation in moderately ill patients showed a nonsignificant lower likelihood in the HD group (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.63-1.08]). We cannot advocate for HD in all COVID-19 patients, although it shows some nonsignificant benefits on disease progression in those with elevated D-dimer who do not need ICU admission.
| S-EPMC9496532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate physician perceptions and attitudes toward telemedicine use at a tertiary care academic institution in northeast Florida during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.Patients and methodsAn anonymous 38-question cross-sectional survey was developed using Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics) and e-mailed to all staff physicians from all specialty disciplines at Mayo Clinic in Florida. The survey was open from August 17, 2020, through September 1, 2020. Collected data included general demographic characteristics and employment information, attitude and experience with telemedicine use before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, perception of patients' experience, and the effect of telemedicine on burnout.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 529 eligible physicians at our institution, with 103 physicians responding (20%). The distribution of specialties was 22% primary care specialties, 41% other internal medicine subspecialties, and 18% surgical specialties. Collectively, 63% found comparable quality of care when provided virtually (vs in-person) whereas 80% perceived telemedicine as cost-effective. A total of 76% of physicians felt that telemedicine increased flexibility and control over patient care activities, with 36% reporting improved work-life balance and 30% reporting improved burnout symptoms. Overall, 42% preferred using telemedicine over in-person visits when possible.ConclusionPhysicians generally had positive attitudes regarding the adoption of telemedicine and perceived that the quality of health care delivery as generally comparable to in-person care. Future studies are needed to explore attitudes regarding telemedicine after the pandemic and how this virtual technology may be further used to improve physicians' professional and personal well-being.
| S-EPMC8245346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0-10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20-43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10-70%) and 27% (95% CI 17-40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.
| S-EPMC7396456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoagulopathy and thromboembolic events are common in Covid-19 patients and are poor prognostic factors. Controversy exists regarding the potential of anticoagulation (AC) to reduce mortality and incidence of thromboembolic events in Covid-19 patients. The current systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between anticoagulants and mortality in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients using the available published non-randomized studies.MethodsGoogle Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials.gov were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of adjusted and unadjusted estimates was performed. The relative risk was used as a measure of effect. The random-effects model was used to pool estimates using the generic inverse variance method.ResultsSixteen studies were included in the quantitative data synthesis. Results showed a statistically significant association between AC and mortality (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.36; 0.92, p = 0.02). Both therapeutic (Relative risk [RR] = 0.4, 95% CI 0.27; 0.57) and prophylactic AC (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.41; 0.71) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Pre-admission AC was not associated with mortality (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.49; 1.43, p > 0.05) while prophylactic AC was associated with higher risk of mortality compared to therapeutic AC (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.34; 1.87, p < 0.001).ConclusionFindings support the association of AC with mortality in Covid-19 patients. The results, synthesized from mostly low-quality studies, show that prophylactic and therapeutic AC might reduce mortality in Covid-19 patients. Findings suggest that therapeutic doses might be associated with better survival compared to prophylactic doses.
| S-EPMC7646049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69-71) and 98% (95% CI: 98-98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80-86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70-72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63-75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59-77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82-82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65-71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95-97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.
| S-EPMC8774565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of estimates of the incubation period of COVID-19.DesignRapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research.SettingInternational studies on incubation period of COVID-19.ParticipantsSearches were carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Library as well as the preprint servers MedRxiv and BioRxiv. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they reported either the parameters and CIs of the distributions fit to the data, or sufficient information to facilitate calculation of those values. After initial eligibility screening, 24 studies were selected for initial review, nine of these were shortlisted for meta-analysis. Final estimates are from meta-analysis of eight studies.Primary outcome measuresParameters of a lognormal distribution of incubation periods.ResultsThe incubation period distribution may be modelled with a lognormal distribution with pooled mu and sigma parameters (95% CIs) of 1.63 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.75) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.55), respectively. The corresponding mean (95% CIs) was 5.8 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.7) days. It should be noted that uncertainty increases towards the tail of the distribution: the pooled parameter estimates (95% CIs) resulted in a median incubation period of 5.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8) days, whereas the 95th percentile was 11.7 (95% CI 9.7 to 14.2) days.ConclusionsThe choice of which parameter values are adopted will depend on how the information is used, the associated risks and the perceived consequences of decisions to be taken. These recommendations will need to be revisited once further relevant information becomes available. Accordingly, we present an R Shiny app that facilitates updating these estimates as new data become available.
| S-EPMC7430485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAbnormal coagulation and thrombotic complications prompted many guidelines to recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but the dose required for prophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review (SR) analyses the safety and efficacy of therapeutic dose anticoagulation (TDA) versus non-therapeutic dose anticoagulation (NDA) in COVID-19 patients.MethodsAccording to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions, we performed an SR. The protocol is registered in Prospero (CRD42021269197, date 12 August 2021).ResultsIn this SR of 18 studies, TDA was shown to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70, 0.99) in COVID-19 infection. TDA also reduced thrombosis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.72) but increased major bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.29, 2.69). A stratified analysis according to severity revealed that, in non-critical patients, TDA resulted in mortality benefit (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67, 0.94). In critical patients, TDA did not affect all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89, 1.18) but reduced thrombosis (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.86) and increased major bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.06, 3.23).ConclusionTDA significantly reduced all-cause mortality and thrombosis in non-critical COVID-19 patients at the expense of increased major bleeding. In critical COVID-19, this mortality benefit was not observed.
| S-EPMC11811394 | biostudies-literature