Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk of thrombosis. Literature that compares the effectiveness of enoxaparin to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in COVID-19 patients is scarce.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enoxaparin compared with UFH when used at their standard/intermediate dosing in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study conducted at a large COVID-19 center located in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Confirmed COVID-19 cases (≥18 years old) admitted between January and December 2020 were randomly screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, on chronic anticoagulation, had active bleeding, a platelet count <25 × 10⁹/L, or an incomplete electronic file. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any thrombotic event (pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, stroke, or myocardial infarction) or mortality. Secondary endpoints were major or minor bleeding. We applied inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis to analyze the primary endpoint. Logistic regression was used for the secondary endpoint.

Results

A total of 980 patients were included (enoxaparin, n = 470 and UFH, n = 510) with a mean age (±SD) of 47.7 (± 12.3) for the enoxaparin arm and 52 (±13.9) for the UFH arm. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.46 (95%CI: 0.22 to 0.96, P = 0.039) in favor of the enoxaparin arm. There was no statistically significant difference in major or minor bleeding rates between the two arms.

Conclusion and relevance

When compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with a significant reduction in thrombotic events or mortality among COVID-19 patients. The results need confirmation from randomized controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: AlLehaibi LH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9996167 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness and Safety of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Evidence.

AlLehaibi Lina H LH Alomar Mukhtar M Almulhim Abdulaziz A Al-Makki Sarah S Alrwaili Nazar R NR Al-Bassam Shahad S Alsultan Semat S Al Saeed Jenan J Alsheef Mohammad M Abraham Ivo I Alamer Ahmad A

The Annals of pharmacotherapy 20220808 4

<h4>Background</h4>Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk of thrombosis. Literature that compares the effectiveness of enoxaparin to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in COVID-19 patients is scarce.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enoxaparin compared with UFH when used at their standard/intermediate dosing in COVID-19 patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective study conducted at a large COVID-19 center located in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. C ...[more]

PMID: 35942505

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Obesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown. Objective This study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH). Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)–related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period). Results Among 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p < 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods. Conclusions Among adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.Study selectionRandomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.Data extractionSample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.Data synthesis23 trials representing 30,966 patients were identified, including 10,243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11,973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13,943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17,023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).ConclusionEnoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Evidence.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion and relevance

Publications

Effectiveness and Safety of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets