Intestinal T cells, mucosal cell-mediated immunity and their relevance to food allergic disease

R. Kay,A. Ferguson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991211

1984-02-01

Clinical Reviews in Allergy

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Use of Oral Anticoagulation Is Not Associated With a Reduced Risk of Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Meng-Fei Dai,Si-Tong Guo,Yi-Jun Ke,Bao-Yan Wang,Feng Yu,Hang Xu,Zhi-Chun Gu,Wei-Hong Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.781192

IF: 5.6

2022-03-31

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolic events are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Whether chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improve the prognosis is yet controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the association between the chronic OAC and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify studies that evaluated OAC for COVID-19 until 24 July 2021. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to pool the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. According to the type of oral anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)], subgroup and interaction analyses were performed to compare DOACs and VKAs. Meta-regression was performed to explore the potential confounders on all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 30,646 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results confirmed that chronic OAC did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.82–1.03; p = 0.165) or ICU admission (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.40–1.04; p = 0.073) in patients with COVID-19 compared to those without OAC. The chronic use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to VKAs ( P interaction = 0.497) in subgroup and interaction analyses. The meta-regression failed to detect any potential confounding on all-cause mortality. Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with chronic OAC were not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and ICU admission compared to those without OAC, and the results were consistent across DOACs and VKA subgroups. Systematic Review Registration: clinicaltrials.gov , identifier CRD42021269764.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Challenges in evaluating treatments for COVID-19: The case of in-hospital anticoagulant use and the risk of adverse outcomes

Ya-Hui Yu,In-Sun Oh,Han Eol Jeong,Robert W. Platt,Antonios Douros,Ju-Young Shin,Kristian B. Filion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1034636

IF: 5.6

2022-11-24

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Anticoagulants are a potential treatment for the thrombotic complications resulting from COVID-19. We aimed to determine the association between anticoagulant use and adverse outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We used data from the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project in South Korea from January to June 2020. We defined exposure using an intention-to-treat approach, with person-time classified as use or non-use of anticoagulants at cohort entry, and a time-varying approach. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality; the secondary outcome was a composite including respiratory outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and intensive care unit admission. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of the outcomes comparing use versus non-use of anticoagulants. Our cohort included 2,677 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, of whom 24 received anticoagulants at cohort entry. Users were older and had more comorbidities. The crude incidence rate (per 1,000 person-days) of mortality was 5.83 (95% CI: 2.80, 10.72) among anticoagulant users and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.59) for non-users. Crude rates of the composite outcome were 3.20 (95% CI: 1.04, 7.47) and 1.80 (95% CI: 1.54, 2.08), respectively. Adjusted HRs for mortality (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.48, 2.64) and the composite outcome (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.28, 2.18) were inconclusive. Although our study was not able to draw conclusions on anticoagulant effectiveness for COVID-19 outcomes, these results can contribute to future knowledge syntheses of this important question. Our study demonstrated that the dynamic pandemic environment may have important implications for observational studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists after recent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

David J. Seiffge,Maurizio Paciaroni,Duncan Wilson,Masatoshi Koga,Kosmas Macha,Manuel Cappellari,Sabine Schaedelin,Clare Shakeshaft,Masahito Takagi,Georgios Tsivgoulis,Bruno Bonetti,Bernd Kallmünzer,Shoji Arihiro,Andrea Alberti,Alexandros A. Polymeris,Gareth Ambler,Sohei Yoshimura,Michele Venti,Leo H. Bonati,Keith W. Muir,Hiroshi Yamagami,Sebastian Thilemann,Riccardo Altavilla,Nils Peters,Manabu Inoue,Tobias Bobinger,Giancarlo Agnelli,Martin M. Brown,Shoichiro Sato,Monica Acciarresi,Hans Rolf Jager,Paolo Bovi,Stefan Schwab,Philippe Lyrer,Valeria Caso,Kazunori Toyoda,David J. Werring,Stefan T. Engelter,Gian Marco De Marchis,RAF on behalf of the CROMIS‐2,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25489

IF: 11.2

2019-04-30

Annals of Neurology

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: We compared outcomes after treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a recent cerebral ischemia.METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data analysis of seven prospective cohort studies. We included patients with AF and a recent cerebral ischemia (<3 months before starting oral anticoagulation) and a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We analyzed the association between type of anticoagulation (DOAC versus VKA) with the composite primary endpoint (recurrent ischemic stroke [AIS], intracerebral hemorrhage [ICH], or mortality) using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards regression models; we calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).RESULTS: We included 4,912 patients (median age, 78 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 71-84]; 2,331 [47.5%] women; median National Institute of Health Stroke Severity Scale at onset, 5 [IQR, 2-12]); 2,256 (45.9%) patients received VKAs and 2,656 (54.1%) DOACs. Median time from index event to starting oral anticoagulation was 5 days (IQR, 2-14) for VKAs and 5 days (IQR, 2-11) for DOACs (p = 0.53). There were 262 acute ischemic strokes (AISs; 4.4%/year), 71 intracranial hemorrrhages (ICHs; 1.2%/year), and 439 deaths (7.4%/year) during the total follow-up of 5,970 patient-years. Compared to VKAs, DOAC treatment was associated with reduced risks of the composite endpoint (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00; p = 0.05) and ICH (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71; p < 0.01); we found no differences for the risk of recurrent AIS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.19; p = 0.5) and mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03; p = 0.09).INTERPRETATION: DOAC treatment commenced early after recent cerebral ischemia related to AF was associated with reduced risk of poor clinical outcomes compared to VKA, mainly attributed to lower risks of ICH. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:823-834.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Abstract TP163: Associations Between Prior Oral Anticoagulant Use and Stroke Outcomes in a National Stroke Cohort: A Scottish Database Study

Kadie-Ann Sterling,Melanie Turner,Mary J Macleod

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/str.55.suppl_1.tp163

IF: 10.17

2024-02-01

Stroke

Abstract:Background and aims: Recent studies suggest that oral anticoagulant (OAC) use prior to stroke is associated with better functional outcomes after ischaemic stroke, but worse outcomes after non-traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to assess the impact of prior OAC use on stroke subtype and outcomes (mortality and discharge to home) in a Scottish stroke cohort. Methods: Data on first-ever strokes between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were gathered from the Scottish Stroke Care Audit. The Prescribing Information System was used to identify patients with a prescription for OAC within 90-days before stroke, and further linked to hospital admission and discharge data in the Scottish Morbidity Record 01, and mortality data in the National Records of Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, atrial fibrillation, stroke severity, acute management and Charlson Comorbidity scores. Results: Among 52 988 stroke patients (50.1% women; mean age 72.8 [±13.3] years), 88.9% were ischaemic and 18.3% had a history of atrial fibrillation. OACs (warfarin [73%] and direct oral anticoagulants [28%]) were prescribed to 3533 (7.5%) patients with ischaemic stroke and 847 (14.4%) patients with ICH within 90 days prior to first-ever stroke. After model adjustments, prior OAC use was associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of experiencing an ICH (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 2.92; 95% CI, 2.61 - 3.26]). In patients with ischaemic stroke or ICH, prior OAC use was not associated with better or worse outcomes in 30-day discharge to usual place of residence (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89 - 1.09 and aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 - 1.12 respectively) or 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94 - 1.21 and aOR, 1.20, 95% CI, 0.93 - 1.56 respectively) in comparison to those with no prior OAC use. Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed for discharge or mortality outcomes within 90 days after stroke. Conclusions: Prior OAC use was higher in patients with ICH, which may partly reflect ischaemic stroke reduction in patients taking OAC. However, prior OAC use was not associated with better or worse outcomes in terms of mortality and discharge to home in either ischaemic or ICH populations.

peripheral vascular disease,clinical neurology
Increased tissue water in the brain: influence on regional cerebral blood flow and oxygen supply.

J. Grote,H. Reulen,R. Schubert

Abstract:
Comparative analysis of vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants for left ventricular thrombus management: a retrospective study utilising TriNetX

Z Yao,Y Gue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1496

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction Despite progress in cardiovascular medicine, guidelines for addressing left ventricular thrombus (LVT) remain limited. Furthermore, incorporating oral anticoagulants into dual antiplatelet therapy for acute myocardial infarction (MI) adds complexity to treatment decisions. While conventional guidance favors vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), emerging evidence suggests favorable outcomes with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Purpose This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus VKAs in managing LVT among patients with and without recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods This was a retrospective observational study conducted within TriNetX, a global federated health research network with access to electronic medical records (EMRs) from participating health care organizations including academic medical centres and community hospitals covering approximately 70 million individuals, mainly in the United States. The search was conducted on 26th Februrary 2024 with a study cohort comprising patients with LV thrombus treated with either DOAC or VKA between 1st December 2013 to 1st December 2023. Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with ACS within one month and those without ACS within a month of treatment. Cohort data were subject to propensity matching (PSM) for age, gender, ethnicities, medical and drug history. Risk analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were computed for each subgroup at 90 days since the indexed event. Results Following PSM, a total of 39,770 patients were included and 14,302 were in the ACS group and 24,162 in the non-ACS group. DOAC treatment exhibited favourable outcomes for stroke, bleeding, and systemic embolism (p<0.05) compared to VKA in the overall cohort (Table 1). In the ACS group, DOAC was linked to a reduced risk of stroke and systemic embolism (p<0.05) but not bleeding (p=0.066). In the non-ACS group, DOAC was associated with a decreased risk of stroke and bleeding (p<0.05) but not systemic embolism (p=0.113). Across all groups, there were no disparities in overall all causes of mortalities. Conclusion DOACs demonstrated better safety and efficacy outcomes when compared to VKAs in LVT treatment. Interestingly, DOACs utilisation within the ACS context resulted in a diminished risk of embolic complications without the benefit of reduced bleeding risk seen in patients without ACS, suggesting potential implications of triple therapy within first month of ACS treatment, removing the bleeding risk reduction of DOACs. This shows a fundamental difference in LVT between the 2 groups of patients so future studies should aim to differentiate between the 2.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
COVID-19 Diagnosis, Oral Anticoagulation, and Stroke Risk in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Lanting Yang,Shangbin Tang,Jingchuan Guo,Nico Gabriel,Walid F Gellad,Utibe R Essien,Jared W Magnani,Inmaculada Hernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-024-00671-3

Abstract:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increased risk of stroke. It remains unclear whether the risk of stroke associated with a diagnosis of COVID-19 differed with oral anticoagulation (OAC) use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between COVID-19 infection, OAC use, and stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in individuals with established AF using data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent variables were employed to assess the association between possession of OAC, COVID-19 diagnosis in both inpatient and outpatient setting, and time to ischemic stroke. Results: A total of 561,758 individuals aged 77 ± 10 were included in the study, with a mean follow up time of 1.3 years. OAC use was associated with a reduced stroke risk [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.88]. COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of stroke (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.87-2.38); this increased risk was particularly pronounced for patients diagnosed with an inpatient diagnosis of COVID-19 (HR 3.95, 95% CI 3.33-4.68). There was no significant interaction between OAC use and COVID-19 diagnosis (p value = 0.96). As a result, the relative increase in stroke risk associated with COVID-19 did not differ between patients on OAC (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.71-2.62) and those not on OAC (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.83-2.43). Conclusion: In a nationwide sample of patients with established AF, we found the relative increase in stroke risk associated with COVID-19 was independent of OAC use.
The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Rena Zheng,Alexandra Solomon,Madeline DiLorenzo,Iniya Rajendran,Joseph Park,Vrushali Dhongade,Michael A Garcia,Robert T Eberhardt,John Mark Sloan,Janice Weinberg,Elizabeth S Klings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8838308

2024-03-11

Abstract:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A key question was whether increased intensity of anticoagulation would help prevent VTE and improve patient outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. At the start of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, our institution, Boston Medical Center, instituted a VTE risk stratification protocol based on patients' initial D-dimer levels, medical history, and presence of thrombosis to determine whether they should receive standard-dose prophylaxis, high-dose prophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study examining the association of degree of anticoagulation with outcomes in 915 hospitalized COVID-19 patients hospitalized initially on the general inpatient wards between March 1,, 2020, and June 1, 2020. Patients directly hospitalized in the ICU were excluded. Most, 813 patients (89%), in our cohort were on standard-dose prophylaxis; 32 patients (3.5%) received high-dose prophylaxis; 70 patients (7.7%), were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. VTE occurred in 45 patients (4.9%), and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.4% (49 deaths). On multivariable analysis of clinical outcomes in relation to type of anticoagulation, in the high-dose prophylaxis group, there was a trend towards increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.4 (0.8-7.5, 95% CI)) and increased ICU transfer (odds ratio 2.2 (0.9-5.7, 95% CI)). Our results suggest that patients receiving high-dose prophylaxis had more severe disease that was not mitigated by intermediate-dose anticoagulation.
Anticoagulant use before COVID-19 diagnosis prevent COVID-19 associated acute venous thromboembolism or not: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kinza Iqbal,Akshat Banga,Taha Bin Arif,Sawai Singh Rathore,Abhishek Bhurwal,Syeda Kisa Batool Naqvi,Muhammad Mehdi,Pankaj Kumar,Mitali Madhu Salklan,Ayman Iqbal,Jawad Ahmed,Nikhil Sharma,Amos Lal,Rahul Kashyap,Vikas Bansal,Juan Pablo Domecq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v14.i3.92983

2024-09-20

Abstract:Background: Coagulopathy and thromboembolic events are associated with poor outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. There is conflicting evidence on the effects of chronic anticoagulation on mortality and severity of COVID-19 disease. Aim: To summarize the body of evidence on the effects of pre-hospital anticoagulation on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: A Literature search was performed on LitCovid PubMed, WHO, and Scopus databases from inception (December 2019) till June 2023 for original studies reporting an association between prior use of anticoagulants and patient outcomes in adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients taking anticoagulants. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 disease severity, in terms of intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation/intubation requirement in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, and mortality. The random effects models were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Results: Forty-six observational studies met our inclusion criteria. The unadjusted analysis found no association between prior anticoagulation and thromboembolic event risk [n = 43851, 9 studies, odds ratio (OR)= 0.67 (0.22, 2.07); P = 0.49; I 2 = 95%]. The association between prior anticoagulation and disease severity was non-significant [n = 186782; 22 studies, OR = 1.08 (0.78, 1.49); P = 0.64; I 2 = 89%]. However, pre-hospital anticoagulation significantly increased all-cause mortality risk [n = 207292; 35 studies, OR = 1.72 (1.37, 2.17); P < 0.00001; I 2 = 93%]. Pooling adjusted estimates revealed a statistically non-significant association between pre-hospital anticoagulation and thromboembolic event risk [aOR = 0.87 (0.42, 1.80); P = 0.71], mortality [aOR = 0.94 (0.84, 1.05); P = 0.31], and disease severity [aOR = 0.96 (0.72, 1.26); P = 0.76]. Conclusion: Prehospital anticoagulation was not significantly associated with reduced risk of thromboembolic events, improved survival, and lower disease severity in COVID-19 patients.
Effect of anticoagulation on the incidence of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an updated meta-analysis

Xinwang Chen,Suyun Zhang,Haiyu Liu,Qianyuan Zhang,Jinghan Chen,Qixian Zheng,Ningjing Guo,Yuanyuan Cai,Qiong Luo,Qian Xu,Sheng Yang,Xiangqi Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1381408

IF: 3.6

2024-04-05

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Objective: Anticoagulation is crucial for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the optimal anticoagulation regimen needs further exploration. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of diverse anticoagulation dosage dosages for COVID-19. Methods: An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of thromboprophylaxis (standard, intermediate, and therapeutic dose) on the incidence of VTE, mortality and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Literature was searched via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for effect estimates. Results: Nineteen studies involving 25,289 participants without VTE history were included. The mean age of patients was 59.3 years old. About 50.96% were admitted to the intensive care unit. In the pooled analysis, both therapeutic-dose and intermediate-dose anticoagulation did not have a significant advantage in reducing VTE risk over standard dosage (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.58–2.02, and OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70–1.12, respectively). Similarly, all-cause mortality was not further decreased in either therapeutic-dose group (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.75–1.67) or intermediate-dose group (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.83–2.17). While the major bleeding risk was significantly elevated in the therapeutic-dose group (OR = 2.59, 95%CI: 1.87–3.57) as compared with the standard-dose regimen. Compared with intermediate dosage, therapeutic anticoagulation did not reduce consequent VTE risk (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.52–1.38) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.60–1.17), but significantly increased major bleeding rate (OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.58–3.70). In subgroup analysis of patients older than 65 years, therapeutic anticoagulation significantly lowered the incidence of VTE in comparation comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis, however, at the cost of elevated risk of major bleeding. Conclusion: Our results indicated that for most hospitalized patients with COVID-19, standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation might be the optimal choice. For elderly patients at low risk of bleeding, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation could further reduce VTE risk and should be considered especially when there were other strong risk factors of VTE during hospital stay. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier, CRD42023388429.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Outpatient and inpatient anticoagulation therapy and the risk for hospital admission and death among COVID-19 patients

Sameh M Hozayen,Diana Zychowski,Sydney Benson,Pamela L Lutsey,Jasmin Haslbauer,Alexandar Tzankov,Zachary Kaltenborn,Michael Usher,Surbhi Shah,Christopher J Tignanelli,Ryan T Demmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101139

IF: 15.1

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Limited data exist informing the relationship between anticoagulation therapy and risk for COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality. Methods: We evaluated all patients over the age of 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 in a prospective cohort study from March 4th to August 27th, 2020 among 12 hospitals and 60 clinics of M Health Fairview system (USA). We investigated the relationship between (1) 90-day anticoagulation therapy among outpatients before COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk for hospitalization and mortality and (2) Inpatient anticoagulation therapy and mortality risk. Findings: Of 6195 patients, 598 were immediately hospitalized and 5597 were treated as outpatients. The overall case-fatality rate was 2•8% (n = 175 deaths). Among the patients who were hospitalized, the inpatient mortality was 13%. Among the 5597 COVID-19 patients initially treated as outpatients, 160 (2.9%) were on anticoagulation and 331 were eventually hospitalized (5.9%). In a multivariable analysis, outpatient anticoagulation use was associated with a 43% reduction in risk for hospital admission, HR (95% CI = 0.57, 0.38-0.86), p = 0.007, but was not associated with mortality, HR (95% CI=0.88, 0.50 - 1.52), p = 0.64. Inpatients who were not on anticoagulation (before or after hospitalization) had an increased risk for mortality, HR (95% CI = 2.26, 1.17-4.37), p = 0.015. Interpretation: Outpatients with COVID-19 who were on outpatient anticoagulation at the time of diagnosis experienced a 43% reduced risk of hospitalization. Failure to initiate anticoagulation upon hospitalization or maintaining outpatient anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was associated with increased mortality risk. Funding: No funding was obtained for this study.
Intracerebral haemorrhage in patients taking different types of oral anticoagulants: a pooled individual patient data analysis from two national stroke registries

Bernhard M Siepen,Elisabeth Forfang,Mattia Branca,Boudewijn Drop,Madlaine Mueller,Martina B Goeldlin,Mira Katan,Patrik Michel,Carlo Cereda,Friedrich Medlin,Nils Peters,Susanne Renaud,Julien Niederhauser,Emmanuel Carrera,Timo Kahles,Georg Kägi,Manuel Bolognese,Stephan Salmen,Marie-Luise Mono,Alexandros A Polymeris,Susanne Wegener,Werner Z'Graggen,Johannes Kaesmacher,Michael Schaerer,Biljana Rodic,Espen Saxhaug Kristoffersen,Kristin T Larsen,Torgeir Bruun Wyller,Bastian Volbers,Thomas R Meinel,Marcel Arnold,Stefan T Engelter,Leo H Bonati,Urs Fischer,Ole Morten Rønning,David J Seiffge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2023-002813

IF: 5.9

2024-02-08

Stroke and Vascular Neurology

Abstract:Background We investigated outcomes in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) according to prior anticoagulation treatment with Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or no anticoagulation. Methods This is an individual patient data study combining two prospective national stroke registries from Switzerland and Norway (2013–2019). We included all consecutive patients with ICH from both registries. The main outcomes were favourable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) and mortality at 3 months. Results Among 11 349 patients with ICH (mean age 73.6 years; 47.6% women), 1491 (13.1%) were taking VKAs and 1205 (10.6%) DOACs (95.2% factor Xa inhibitors). The median percentage of patients on prior anticoagulation was 23.7 (IQR 22.6–25.1) with VKAs decreasing (from 18.3% to 7.6%) and DOACs increasing (from 3.0% to 18.0%) over time. Prior VKA therapy (n=209 (22.3%); adjusted ORs (aOR), 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84) and prior DOAC therapy (n=184 (25.7%); aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.87) were independently associated with lower odds of favourable outcome compared with patients without anticoagulation (n=2037 (38.8%)). Prior VKA therapy (n=720 (49.4%); aOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.08) and prior DOAC therapy (n=460 (39.7%); aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.60) were independently associated with higher odds of mortality compared with patients without anticoagulation (n=2512 (30.2%)). Conclusions The spectrum of anticoagulation-associated ICH changed over time. Compared with patients without prior anticoagulation, prior VKA treatment and prior DOAC treatment were independently associated with lower odds of favourable outcome and higher odds of mortality at 3 months. Specific reversal agents unavailable during the study period might improve outcomes of DOAC-associated ICH in the future.

clinical neurology
Bayesian Meta-analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Vitamin K Antagonists With or Without Concomitant Antiplatelet After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Anticoagulation Indication

Gabriel Sheng Jie Lee,Hannah Si En Tay,Vanessa Xin Yi Teo,Rachel Sze Jen Goh,Bryan Chong,Siew Pang Chan,Edgar Tay,Yinghao Lim,James Yip,Nicholas W. S Chew,Ivandito Kuntjoro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197221121616

2022-11-12

Angiology

Abstract:Angiology, Ahead of Print. Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) commonly have co-morbidities requiring anticoagulation. However, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen is not well-established. This meta-analysis investigates safety and efficacy outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA), with or without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for appropriate studies. Subgroup analyses were performed for anticoagulant monotherapy and combined therapy with antiplatelet agents. Eleven studies (6359 patients) were included. Overall, there were no differences between DOACs and VKA for all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR]: .69; Credible Interval [CrI]: .40–1.06), cardiovascular-related mortality (OR: .76; Crl: .13–3.47), bleeding (OR: .95; CrI: .75–1.17), stroke (OR: 1.04; CrI: .65–1.63), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.51; CrI: .55–3.84), and valve thrombosis (OR: .29; CrI: .01–3.54). For DOACs vs VKA monotherapy subgroup, there were no differences in outcomes. For the combined therapy subgroup, there was decreased odds of all-cause mortality in the DOACs group compared with the VKA group (OR: .13; CrI: .02–.65), but no differences for bleeding and stroke. DOACs and VKA have similar safety and efficacy profiles for post-TAVI patients with anticoagulation indication. However, if concomitant antiplatelet therapy is required, DOACs were more favorable than VKA for all-cause mortality.

peripheral vascular disease
Potential interactions between medications for rate control and direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort and case-crossover study

Angel YS. Wong,Charlotte Warren-Gash,Krishnan Bhaskaran,Clémence Leyrat,Amitava Banerjee,Liam Smeeth,Ian J. Douglas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.06.033

IF: 6.779

2024-06-23

Heart Rhythm

Abstract:Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly co-prescribed with amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil, but whether there is a drug interaction between these drugs is unclear. Objective To investigate the risk of clinical outcomes associated with concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil. Methods We identified DOAC users in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum from 1/1/2011-31/12/2019. We used a cohort design to estimate hazard ratios for Ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, other bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality comparing DOACs+amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users, respectively and DOACs+beta-blocker users. A case-crossover design comparing odds of exposure to different drug initiation patterns for all outcomes in hazard window versus referent window within an individual was also conducted. Results Of 397,459 DOAC users, we included 9075 co-prescribed amiodarone, 9612 co-prescribed diltiazem, and 2907 co-prescribed verapamil. There was no difference in risk of any outcomes between DOACs+amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users, respectively versus DOACs+beta-blocker users in cohort design. However, in case-crossover design, we observed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.09 (99%CI: 1.37–3.18) for all-cause mortality associated with an initiation of a DOAC while taking amiodarone; which was greater than that observed for DOAC monotherapy (OR: 1.30; 99%CI: 1.25–1.35). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality respectively with diltiazem. Conclusions Our study shows no evidence of higher bleeding or cardiovascular risk associated with co-prescribed DOACs and amiodarone, diltiazem or verapamil respectively. The elevated risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were only observed during DOAC initiation when diltiazem/amiodarone were being taken.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Postdischarge thromboembolic outcomes and mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the CORE-19 registry

Dimitrios Giannis,on behalf of the Northwell COVID-19 Research Consortium,Steven L. Allen,James Tsang,Sarah Flint,Tamir Pinhasov,Stephanie Williams,Gary Tan,Richa Thakur,Christian Leung,Matthew Snyder,Chirag Bhatia,David Garrett,Christina Cotte,Shelby Isaacs,Emma Gugerty,Anne Davidson,Galina S. Marder,Austin Schnitzer,Bradley Goldberg,Thomas McGinn,Karina W. Davidson,Matthew A. Barish,Michael Qiu,Meng Zhang,Mark Goldin,Miltiadis Matsagkas,Eleni Arnaoutoglou,Alex C. Spyropoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2020010529

IF: 20.3

2021-05-20

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Thromboembolic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality from subclinical thrombotic events occur frequently in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) inpatients. Whether the risk extends postdischarge has been controversial. Our prospective registry included consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized within our multihospital system from 1 March to 31 May 2020. We captured demographics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, medications, postdischarge thromboprophylaxis, and 90-day outcomes. Data from electronic health records, health informatics exchange, radiology database, and telephonic follow-up were merged. Primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality (ACM). Principal safety outcome was major bleeding (MB). Among 4906 patients (53.7% male), mean age was 61.7 years. Comorbidities included hypertension (38.6%), diabetes (25.1%), obesity (18.9%), and cancer history (13.1%). Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 13.2%. VTE rate was 1.55%; ATE, 1.71%; ΑCM, 4.83%; and MB, 1.73%. Composite primary outcome rate was 7.13% and significantly associated with advanced age (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 2.84-4.71), prior VTE (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.00-4.47), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.78-2.93), chronic kidney disease (CKD; OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.47-3.0), peripheral arterial disease (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.10-3.80), carotid occlusive disease (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30-3.14), IMPROVE-DD VTE score ≥4 (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14), and coronary artery disease (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.17). Postdischarge anticoagulation was significantly associated with reduction in primary outcome (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.81). Postdischarge VTE, ATE, and ACM occurred frequently after COVID-19 hospitalization. Advanced age, cardiovascular risk factors, CKD, IMPROVE-DD VTE score ≥4, and ICU stay increased risk. Postdischarge anticoagulation reduced risk by 46%.

hematology
Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States

Christopher T Rentsch,Joshua A Beckman,Laurie Tomlinson,Walid F Gellad,Charles Alcorn,Farah Kidwai-Khan,Melissa Skanderson,Evan Brittain,Joseph T King Jr,Yuk-Lam Ho,Svetlana Eden,Suman Kundu,Michael F Lann,Robert A Greevy Jr,P Michael Ho,Paul A Heidenreich,Daniel A Jacobson,Ian J Douglas,Janet P Tate,Stephen Jw Evans,David Atkins,Amy C Justice,Matthew S Freiberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.09.20246579

2020-12-11

MedRxiv

Abstract:Importance: Deaths among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are partially attributed to venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboses. Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis formation, possess anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties, and may be particularly effective for treating patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate whether initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission is associated with decreased risk of death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. Participants: All patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection March 1 to July 31, 2020, without a history of therapeutic anticoagulation. Exposures: Prophylactic doses of subcutaneous heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or direct oral anticoagulants. Main outcomes and measures: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: Of 4,297 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 3,627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3,600) received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. We observed 622 deaths within 30 days of admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospitalization. In inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, cumulative adjusted incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% CI 13.1-15.5) among those receiving prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (95% CI 15.1-22.9) among those who did not. Compared to patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30-day mortality (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. Quantitative bias analysis demonstrated that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% CI 1.77). Results persisted in a number of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and relevance: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was associated with a decreased risk of mortality. These findings provide strong real-world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial therapy for COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission.
Effect of Therapeutic Versus Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: a Systematic Review with an Updated Meta-Analysis

Daojun Hong,Yahui Li,Youxian Sun,Liang Wei,Ziqing Wang,Fang,Yisheng Zhong,Jiao Huang,Linjie Luo,Zhiyong Peng,Huaqin Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-022-00408-9

2022-01-01

Thrombosis Journal

Abstract:Background Previous studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial. Methods We systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity. Results We identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78–1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98–1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19–2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56–3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39–0.67, P <0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66–1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39–0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34–1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results. Conclusions In our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs. Trial registration Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294). Graphical abstract
The pharmacology of anticoagulant drug treatment options in COVID-19 patients: reviewing real-world evidence in clinical practice

Vincenzo Russo,Adriano Caputo,Egidio Imbalzano,Pierpaolo Di Micco,Antonio Frontera,Ambra Uccello,Luana Orlando,Paola Galimberti,Paolo Golino,Antonello D'Andrea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2022.2117154

Abstract:Introduction: The optimal anticoagulation strategy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention among COVID-19 patients, hospitalized or in the community setting, is still challenging and largely based on real-world evidence. Areas covered: We analyzed real-world data regarding the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment, both parenteral and oral, for VTE prevention or atrial fibrillation (AF)/VTE treatment among COVID-19 patients. Expert opinion: The efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses for VTE prevention correlates with COVID-19 disease status. LMWH prophylactic dose may be useful in COVID-19 patients at the early stage of the disease. LMWH intermediate or therapeutic dose is recommended in COVID-19 patients with an advanced stage of the disease. COVID-19 patients on VKA therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) and VTE should switch to NOACs in the community setting or LMWH in the hospital setting. No definitive data on de-novo starting of NOACs or VKA therapy for VTE prevention in COVID-19 outpatients are available. In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalization due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with NOACs may be considered.
Oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation early after valvular intervention: a nationwide cohort study

C Christersson,E L Skogseid,J Westerbergh,C Held,G Batra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.1562

IF: 39.3

2022-10-18

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Treatment with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) is the first option for primary prevention of ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is still an evidence gap regarding efficacy and safety of NOAC in patients with AF and severe valvular heart disease undergoing valvular intervention. Purpose The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOAC or no oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment versus warfarin during the first 3 months after valvular intervention. Methods We used data from the National Quality Register SWEDEHEART and included all patients with AF discharged after surgical valvular intervention with bioprosthesis or valvuloplasty, or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) between 2010 and 2016. Outcomes, including the composite of cardiovascular (CV) events (CV death, ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism), major bleeding, and relevant comorbidities and OAC treatment at discharge were collected from the National Patient Register, the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, and the National Cause of Death Register. The association between exposure (warfarin, NOAC or no OAC) and occurrence of composite CV events and major bleeding was explored using a time-dependent adjusted Cox regression analysis. Results In total, 4730 patients with AF and valvular intervention were included. The cohort had a mean age of 75 years, 35.9% were women and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (Table 1). The proportion of patients treated with warfarin was higher in patients undergoing surgical valve intervention whereas NOAC was more commonly prescribed to patients treated with TAVI. Rates of composite CV events and major bleeding was similar between patients treated with NOAC versus warfarin. No OAC treatment versus warfarin was associated with higher rate of composite CV event, but with no difference with regard to major bleeding (Table 1). Conclusion A large proportion of patients with AF undergoing valvular intervention was not treated with OAC despite having a high CHA2DS2-VASc score. Also, patients on no OAC versus warfarin had a higher risk of i CV events in the early phase after valvular intervention. The efficacy and safety of NOAC was similar compared to warfarin during the first 3 months after intervention. Treatment with OAC in patients with AF, irrespective of NOAC or warfarin, was associated with improved clinical outcome early after valve intervention. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies

Riccardo Vio,Andrea S Giordani,Maria Stefil,Ahmed Alturki,Vincenzo Russo,Paolo China,Alessio Gasperetti,Marco Schiavone,Viktor Čulić,Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai,Sakis Themistoclakis,Gregory Y Lip,Riccardo Proietti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.22.06230-5

Abstract:Introduction: Coagulopathy, in the form of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, is one of the most severe sequelae of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been associated with poorer outcomes. However, the role of therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) or prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) in COVID-19 patients has not been definitely established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather all the available real-world data in the field and to provide a reliable effect size of the effect on mortality of tAC compared to pAC in COVID-19 patients. Evidence acquisition: Real-world studies (RWS) were identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 31st October, 2021. Randomized controlled trials were excluded. Mortality and bleedings were considered as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Evidence synthesis: 10 RWS and 5541 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, tAC was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71). There was asymmetry at the funnel plot suggesting publication bias, that was not confirmed at the Egger test (P=0.07). For the secondary endpoint, there was a non-statistically significant tendency for more bleedings in patients treated with tAC compared to pAC (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 0.81-3.81). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, based on RWS and adjusted estimates of risk, suggests a survival benefit of tAC over pAC in COVID-19 patients in the real world.

Intestinal T cells, mucosal cell-mediated immunity and their relevance to food allergic disease

The Use of Oral Anticoagulation Is Not Associated With a Reduced Risk of Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Challenges in evaluating treatments for COVID-19: The case of in-hospital anticoagulant use and the risk of adverse outcomes

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists after recent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

Abstract TP163: Associations Between Prior Oral Anticoagulant Use and Stroke Outcomes in a National Stroke Cohort: A Scottish Database Study

Increased tissue water in the brain: influence on regional cerebral blood flow and oxygen supply.

Comparative analysis of vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants for left ventricular thrombus management: a retrospective study utilising TriNetX

COVID-19 Diagnosis, Oral Anticoagulation, and Stroke Risk in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Anticoagulant use before COVID-19 diagnosis prevent COVID-19 associated acute venous thromboembolism or not: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of anticoagulation on the incidence of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an updated meta-analysis

Outpatient and inpatient anticoagulation therapy and the risk for hospital admission and death among COVID-19 patients

Intracerebral haemorrhage in patients taking different types of oral anticoagulants: a pooled individual patient data analysis from two national stroke registries

Bayesian Meta-analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Vitamin K Antagonists With or Without Concomitant Antiplatelet After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Anticoagulation Indication

Potential interactions between medications for rate control and direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort and case-crossover study

Postdischarge thromboembolic outcomes and mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the CORE-19 registry

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States

Effect of Therapeutic Versus Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: a Systematic Review with an Updated Meta-Analysis

The pharmacology of anticoagulant drug treatment options in COVID-19 patients: reviewing real-world evidence in clinical practice

Oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation early after valvular intervention: a nationwide cohort study

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies