key: cord-326354-fhafg41x
authors: Pesavento, Raffaele; Ceccato, Davide; Pasquetto, Giampaolo; Monticelli, Jacopo; Leone, Lucia; Frigo, Annachiara; Gorgi, Davide; Postal, Anna; Marchese, Giuseppe Maria; Cipriani, Alberto; Saller, Alois; Sarais, Cristiano; Criveller, Pietro; Gemelli, Marco; Capone, Federico; Fioretto, Paola; Pagano, Claudio; Rossato, Marco; Avogaro, Angelo; Simioni, Paolo; Prandoni, Paolo; Vettor, Roberto
title: The hazard of (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants in non‐critically ill patients with Covid‐19: the Padua province experience
date: 2020-07-21
journal: J Thromb Haemost
DOI: 10.1111/jth.15022
sha: 
doc_id: 326354
cord_uid: fhafg41x

BACKGROUND: COVID‐19 is responsible for a worldwide pandemic, with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The increasing evidence of an associated relevant pro‐thrombotic coagulopathy has resulted in an increasing use of antithrombotic doses higher than usual in COVID‐19 patients. Information on the benefit/risk ratio of this approach is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: to assess the incidence of relevant bleeding complications in association with the antithrombotic strategy, and its relationship with the amount of drug. METHODS: Consecutive COVID‐19 patients admitted between February and April 2020 were included in a retrospective analysis. Major bleedings (MB) and clinical relevant non‐major bleeding (CRNMB) were obtained from patient medical records and were adjudicated by an independent committee. RESULTS: Of the 324 patients who were recruited, 240 had been treated with prophylactic doses and 84 with higher doses of anticoagulants. The rate of the composite endpoint of MB or CRNMB was 6.9 per 100 person/months in patients who had been given prophylactic doses, and 26.4 per 100 persons/months in those who had been prescribed higher doses (HR 3.89; 95%CI, 1.90 to 7.97). The corresponding rates for overall mortality were 12.2 and 20.1 per 100 person/months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of relevant bleeding events were high in patients treated with (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants. In the latter group, overall mortality did not differ from that of patients treated with standard prophylactic doses and was even higher. Our result does not support a strategy of giving (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants in non‐critically ill patients with COVID‐19.

COVID-19 (acronym of COronaVIrus Disease 2019), or acute respiratory disease determined by a novel beta coronavirus, named SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) is an infectious respiratory disease, responsible for a worldwide pandemic, with a high rate of morbidity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] . COVID-19 is characterized by a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, ranging from no or flu-like syndrome to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. In current practice, mainly based on the experience gained in China, where the first disease outbreak developed in late 2019, symptomatic patients are treated with pharmacological cocktails including antiviral agents, hydroxychloroquine, macrolides, antiphlogistic and antithrombotic drugs [2, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] .

The use of antithrombotic agents in COVID-19 hospitalized patients was initially guided by the recommendations issued by several international societies for protection against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in high-risk medical patients [16] . Later on, increasing evidence has shown that a remarkable pro-thrombotic coagulopathy may occur in the clinical course of several COVID-19 patients, leading to the development of fatal and non-fatal venous and arterial complications, even in patients who had been administered prophylactic doses of heparins or fondaparinux [13, [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] ].

This has resulted in an increasing use of antithrombotic doses higher than usual, especially in patients perceived as being at a higher thromboembolic risk because of an unusually high D-dimer value and/or the presence of additional comorbidities [13] . As available information on the benefit/risk profile of this approach is still lacking, we retrieved information from a broad Accepted Article number of consecutive patients with non-critical COVID-19 who had been admitted to two medical wards and had been prescribed variable doses of antithrombotic drugs according to the physicians' perception of the thromboembolic risk. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of relevant bleeding complications occurring in association with the antithrombotic strategy, and its relationship with the amount of drug. We also assessed whether and to what extent factors other than antithrombotic agents can affect the haemorrhagic risk. The choice of the drug was left to the discretion of attending physicians, as was its dosage and duration.

All consecutive patients admitted to two medical wards (the non-intensive COVID-19 Unit of the University Hospital of Padua and the COVID-19

Hospital of the Padua Province, Ospedali Riuniti Padova Sud, Monselice, both in Northern Italy) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between February26 th and April 6 th 2020 were eligible for this retrospective investigation. According to the WHO laboratory guidelines, confirmation for SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a positive result of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs [1] . Patients with critical disease (i.e., patients requiring intubation for ventilatory support or intensive care) were excluded, as were those who could not receive antithrombotic prophylaxis and those on indefinite treatment with vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants ( DOAC) for cardiovascular disorders. The investigation was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki (2001) and local Accepted Article regulations. The study protocol was approved by the cardiovascular section in-house Ethics Committee on Human Research of the Padua Province.

Study data and clinical information were collected and managed by medical staff using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Padua. For each patient, the following baseline data were collected: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), D-Dimer, history of previous VTE or bleeding, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) and several bleeding risk factors (indicated in Table 1 ). In addition, the main pharmacologic treatments other than antithrombotic drugs were recorded, as was the need for subsequent intensive care.

The choice of the antithrombotic agent was left to the discretion of attending physicians, who decided to use prophylactic or higher doses based on the perceived thromboembolic risk, in turn guided by the value of baseline Ddimer and/or the presence of comorbidities, such as obesity, cancer, venous insufficiency, personal or familiar history of VTE, known thrombophilia or ongoing treatment with hormonal or antipsychotic drugs. From the clinical charts we retrieved information on each of the three antithrombotic drugs that had been administered (unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin or fondaparinux), and predefined the dose intensity as being prophylactic or higher. Daily doses of unfractionated heparin up to 15,000 U, of enoxaparin up to 4000 U and of fondaparinux up to 2.5 mg were labelled as prophylactic (prophylaxis group). Higher daily doses, usually adjusted to body weight or Accepted Article laboratory parameters, were aggregated in one group [(sub)therapeutic group] regardless of the drug amount.

The primary endpoint was the composite of major bleeding (MB) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) occurring in each of the two study groups during the administration of antithrombotic agents (up to two days after their discontinuation). Secondary outcomes were the single components of the primary one, as were objectively confirmed symptomatic VTE and all-cause mortality. The severity of bleeding was defined according to the scientific and standardization committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [29] . An independent committee, unaware of the patients' clinical details reviewed and adjudicated all bleeding events.

For the confirmation of lower extremities DVT and PE, leg vein ultrasonography and CT angiography were used, respectively, with the adoption of widely accepted diagnostic criteria.

The time to the primary outcome of MB or CRNMB was calculated as the time from hospitalization to the event occurred or to death or VTE for those patients who experienced these events during the 30 days of hospitalization or 30 days for the survivors. Death and VTE were considered competing events. The rate of the primary composite outcome was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated with the Poisson method. Potential predictors of the primary outcome were tested in a univariate Cox regression model for competing hazards using the Fine and Grey method and those found to be statistically significant at the 10% level were included in a Accepted Article multivariable Cox regression model with stepwise backward selection.

Potential predictors of death for any cause were tested in a univariate Cox regression model, and those found to be statistically significant at the 10% level were included in a multivariable Cox regression model with stepwise backward selection. Results are presented as p-values and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. All the statistical tests were two-tailed and conducted at a significance level of 5% if not otherwise stated and the analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for Windows.

Overall, we retrieved data from 448 eligible patients with non-critically ill 

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved At variable time during hospitalization, 30 patients (9.3%) required intensive care for a median length of stay in ICU of 11 days (IQR 6-17): 7 (2.9%) in the prophylaxis group and the remaining 23 (27.4%) in the treatment group. Table 1 summarizes the main baseline and clinical characteristics of the study cohort, separately for each group. Table 2 (table 3) .

In the multivariable Cox regression model, use of (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants (HR 3.89; 95% CI, 1.90 to 7.97; p=<.001), age older than 80 years (HR 3.40; 95% CI, 1.51 to 7.65; p=0.003) and concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy (HR 9.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 33.7; p< .001) were found to be independent predictors of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (table 4) .

The increasing awareness that low-dose anticoagulants may be ineffective for prevention of thrombotic complications in the course of COVID-19, including the development of micro-thrombosis in the lung vessels, has induced several clinicians to consider the use of sub-therapeutic or even therapeutic doses of antithrombotic agents in all admitted patients, challenging their hemorrhagic potential [13, 30] . The results of our retrospective cohort study do not support this strategy. Indeed, the rate of symptomatic complications occurring during the clinical course of patients who received (sub)therapeutic doses of heparins or fondaparinux did not differ from that of patients given conventional preventive doses, nor did the rate of overall mortality, which was even higher in the former group, most likely because of the recruitment of patients who were on average older and had a higher thromboembolic risk. By converse, the rate of clinically relevant bleeding complications among patients allocated to (sub)therapeutic doses exceeded by far that recorded among those treated with preventive doses. Although obtained with a retrospective study, our results are robust. We recruited two large cohorts of consecutive patients who were admitted to medical wards. In addition, predefined criteria were used for the adjudication of the primary endpoint. Finally, because of the general difficulty in interpreting the cause of death we decided to include all-cause mortality among the (secondary) end-points, in such a way accepting the risk of diluting the contributing role of PE to the patients' mortality but obviating that of missing deaths imputable to pulmonary embolism or thrombosis.

Not surprisingly, the incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding complications occurring during hospitalization was remarkably higher in patients treated with (sub)therapeutic than in those receiving preventive doses of antithrombotic drugs. Of interest, in each of the two study cohorts the observed incidence was consistent with that expected in the respective field [16, 31] . As (sub)-therapeutic doses of antithrombotic drugs failed to reduce the risk of fatal or non-fatal thrombotic complications while simultaneously increasing the haemorrhagic risk, their use in patients with non-critically ill COVID-19 should be discouraged. Our results are consistent with those of a recent multicentre retrospective American study [33] .

Among the potential study limitations are the lack of a standardized approach for the detection of VTE disorders and the heterogeneous distribution of baseline parameters between the two study groups.

Unusually crowded wards and inherent risks of contagion dissemination led attending physicians to modify the diagnostic workup for suspected VTE, limiting the ultrasound detection of DVT only to patients with unexplained leg oedema and CT pulmonary angiography only to those with inexplicable worsening of their respiratory symptoms.

This can account for the discrepancy between our findings and those of recent studies where the occurrence of VTE complications was instead more extensively investigated [20, 32] . In our study cohort, both patients treated with prophylactic and those treated with higher dose of anticoagulants had low median plasma levels of D-dimer (255 and 270 ug/L, respectively).Levels higher than 1000 ug/L were found only in 11% of cases.

Of interest, in these patients, the risk of bleeding, VTE and death was not influenced by the anticoagulant dose (data not reported). According to the results of Tang et al. [13] on patients with severe COVID-19, prophylactic doses of heparin reduced mortality compared with no treatment only in patients with D-dimer levels higher than 3000 ug/L, while no effect was observed in those with lower levels. Therefore, use of (sub)therapeutic doses in patients with less severe Covid-19 and lower D-dimer levels is unlikely to be beneficial while increasing the bleeding risk.

The discrepancy in the baseline laboratory and clinical parameters between the two groups is, in turn, dependent on the arbitrary selection of anticoagulant doses. In fact, the decision was left to attending physicians, who generally prescribed the (sub)therapeutic doses to patients perceived as being at a higher thromboembolic risk. Not surprisingly, therefore (as shown in Table 1 ), patients belonging to the latter group were on average older, had a higher PPS and a longer hospital stay, and more often needed intensive care. Because of these unavoidable limitations, we decided not to Accepted Article include the rate of VTE complications and that of death among the primary study endpoints. By contrast, the primary safety outcomes (major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were accurately recorded and classified and were independently reviewed. As a result of our multivariate proportional hazards regression model, the dose of antithrombotic agents was the main contributor to the remarkable excess in the bleeding risk observed among patients receiving high doses of the antithrombotic drug over those assigned low preventive doses.

Of interest, among the five patients treated with concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy, two developed a clinically relevant bleeding (one major bleeding in a patient treated with enoxaparin prophylactic dose and one CRNMB in a patient treated with weight-adjusted dose). Not surprisingly, the administration of dual or triple antithrombotic therapies can significantly increase the risk of bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

In conclusion, the results of our study do not support the currently adopted strategy of giving weight-adjusted doses of anticoagulants in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the absence of thromboembolic complications.

They are likely to be dangerous and ineffective. Anyway, we acknowledge that, because of the retrospective design of our study and of its limitations, our results may not be strong enough to allow definitive conclusions. Furthermore, as for the current investigation we recruited only non-critically ill patients, our conclusions may not apply to more severe patients. The results of prospective randomized studies, including severe patients, are warranted.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest Accepted Article 

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 

Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance

A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China

A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved centered, retrospective, observational study

A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19?

Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience

Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy

Tissue Plasminogen Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis

Advances in the research of cytokine storm mechanism induced by Coronavirus disease 2019 and the corresponding immunotherapies

Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 Patients: Awareness of an Increased Prevalence

Online ahead of print

Acute pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 pneumonia: a random association?

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up

Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients with Covid-19

Difference of coagulation features between severe pneumonia induced by SARS-CoV2 and non-SARS

Clinical features of 85 fatal cases of