Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19) 医学 2019-20冠状病毒爆发 严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2) 倍他科诺病毒 急诊医学
作者
Ronald Lg Flumignan,Vinicius T Civile,Jéssica Dantas de Sá Tinôco,Patricia If Pascoal,Libnah L Areias,Charbel F Matar,Britta Tendal,Virginia Fm Trevisani,Álvaro N Atallah,Luis Cu Nakano
出处
期刊:The Cochrane library [Elsevier]
卷期号:2022 (3)
标识
DOI:10.1002/14651858.cd013739.pub2
摘要

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.To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.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.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.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.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.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.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
111发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
zccvbn完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
崔昕雨发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
1秒前
额度完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
Rui完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
搜集达人应助小黑子fanfan采纳,获得10
2秒前
紫瓜发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
2秒前
flow完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
Ding发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
粗心的凡阳完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
小明应助青栞采纳,获得10
3秒前
雅雅乐完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
漂亮夏兰完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
scholars完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
4秒前
科研通AI5应助尔东采纳,获得10
4秒前
4秒前
4秒前
5秒前
5秒前
莫愁完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
moon发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
轻松的妍完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
7秒前
友好的半仙完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
雯了菠萝慧吹雪完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
7秒前
wyx完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
8秒前
honey完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
ybk666完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
大恩区发布了新的文献求助20
8秒前
脂蛋白抗原应助杨老师采纳,获得10
8秒前
Ding完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
咔咔发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
计划经济时代的工厂管理与工人状况(1949-1966)——以郑州市国营工厂为例 500
INQUIRY-BASED PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STEM LEARNING AND 21ST CENTURY SKILLS: PREPARING NEW TEACHERS TO IMPLEMENT PROJECT AND PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING 500
The Pedagogical Leadership in the Early Years (PLEY) Quality Rating Scale 410
Modern Britain, 1750 to the Present (第2版) 300
Writing to the Rhythm of Labor Cultural Politics of the Chinese Revolution, 1942–1976 300
Lightning Wires: The Telegraph and China's Technological Modernization, 1860-1890 250
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 物理化学 基因 催化作用 遗传学 冶金 电极 光电子学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 4600326
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 4010520
关于积分的说明 12416659
捐赠科研通 3690261
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2034228
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1067656
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 952475