Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35999599›Full record

ArticleThrombosis journal2022

Effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation therapy on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review with an updated meta-analysis.

Hong Duo, Yahui Li, Yujie Sun, Liang Wei, Ziqing Wang, Fang Fang, Yuxin Zhong, Jiao Huang, Linjie Luo, Zhiyong Peng and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thrombosis journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hong Duo *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Yahui Li *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Yujie Sun *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Liang Wei *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Ziqing Wang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Fang Fang *Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Yuxin ZhongDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China.
Jiao HuangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Linjie LuoDepartment of Experimental Radiation Oncology & Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA. lluo2@mdanderson.org.
Zhiyong PengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China. Pengzy5@hotmail.com.
Huaqin PanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Eastlake Rd., Wuchang, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei province, China. phq2012@whu.edu.cn.
Wuhan University · CNZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University · CNWuhan College · CNThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsIn 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 registrationProtocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).

Indexed as

AnticoagulationCOVID-19Meta-analysisObservational studiesRandomized clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID35999599
PMCPMC9395810
OpenAlexW4292823610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.