49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States.

          Design

          Observational cohort study.

          Setting

          Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system.

          Participants

          All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation.

          Main outcome measures

          The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion.

          Results

          Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses.

          Conclusions

          Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

          Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. Results A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). Conclusions In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

            Abstract Background Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. Results A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%). Conclusions Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pulmonary Vascular Endothelialitis, Thrombosis, and Angiogenesis in Covid-19

              Progressive respiratory failure is the primary cause of death in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. Despite widespread interest in the pathophysiology of the disease, relatively little is known about the associated morphologic and molecular changes in the peripheral lung of patients who die from Covid-19.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: programmer
                Role: database administrator
                Role: data scientist
                Role: associate professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: data analyst
                Role: research assistant professor
                Role: database administrator
                Role: programmer
                Role: associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: computational systems biologist
                Role: professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: director
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-US
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2021
                11 February 2021
                : 372
                : n311
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
                [2 ]VA Connecticut Healthcare System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, West Haven, CT, USA
                [3 ]Cardiovascular Division, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt Translational and Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center, Nashville, TN, USA
                [4 ]Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing, Health Policy Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [6 ]Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [7 ]Center for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [8 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt Translational and Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center, Nashville, TN, USA
                [10 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
                [11 ]Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
                [12 ]Faculty of Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
                [13 ]Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
                [14 ]Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
                [15 ]Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Aurora, CO, USA
                [16 ]VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto, CA, USA
                [17 ]Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
                [18 ]Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN, USA
                [19 ]Health Services Research and Development, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
                [20 ]Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
                [21 ]Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, TN, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: C T Rentsch christopher.rentsch@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk (or @darthctr on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1408-7907
                Article
                renc063838
                10.1136/bmj.n311
                7876672
                33574135
                3deef8c6-a22d-4775-b77f-279ec5df5722
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 01 February 2021
                Categories
                Research
                2474
                1779

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article