Thrombosis

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.

Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.

Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.

Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.

Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.

Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.

Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.

Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.

Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.

Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.

Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.

Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.

Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.

The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.

Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.

Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.

The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.

Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.

Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.

The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.

Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.

Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.