Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Therapeutic versus Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Admitted to Hospital with COVID-19 and Elevated D-dimer Concentration (ACTION): An Open-Label, Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial

View through CrossRef
Background. COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. Methods. We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3–0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings. From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28.899 (34.8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34.288 (41.3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.59–1.22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3.64 [95% CI 1.61–8.27], p=0.0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. Interpretation. In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.
Title: Therapeutic versus Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Admitted to Hospital with COVID-19 and Elevated D-dimer Concentration (ACTION): An Open-Label, Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial
Description:
Background.
COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes.
Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown.
We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.
Methods.
We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil.
Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation.
Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3–0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30.
Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin.
The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population.
The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days.
This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.
gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.
Findings.
From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group).
576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable.
One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis.
The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28.
899 (34.
8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34.
288 (41.
3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0.
86 [95% CI 0.
59–1.
22], p=0·40).
Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients.
The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3.
64 [95% CI 1.
61–8.
27], p=0.
0010).
Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.
Interpretation.
In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation.
Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Related Results

KECEMASAN SAAT PANDEMI COVID 19: LITERATUR REVIEW Hardiyati, Efri Widianti, Taty Hernawaty Departemen Keperawatan Jiwa Poltekkes Kemenkes Mamuju Sulbar, Universitas Pad...
Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
BackgroundA clinical dilemma exists in patients with CKD, ESKD, and after kidney transplantation, as they face concurrent risks of both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications...
Emerging Evidence of IgG4-Related Disease in Pericarditis: A Systematic Review
Emerging Evidence of IgG4-Related Disease in Pericarditis: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a recently identified immune-mediated condition that is debilitating and often overlooked. While IgG4-RD has be...
Does High-Dose Thromboprophylaxis Improve Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients? A Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
Does High-Dose Thromboprophylaxis Improve Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients? A Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
Abstract Background Thromboembolism remains a detrimental complication of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) despite the use of prophylactic doses of anticoagulation ...
Current therapeutic strategies for erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy – literature review and meta-analysis
Current therapeutic strategies for erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy – literature review and meta-analysis
Radical prostatectomy is the most commonly performed treatment option for localised prostate cancer. In the last decades the surgical technique has been improved and modified in or...
981 Dose the D-dimer test has a role in the diagnosis of cerebral vein thrombosis? A systematic review
981 Dose the D-dimer test has a role in the diagnosis of cerebral vein thrombosis? A systematic review
BackgroundThe D-dimer test has a diagnostic role in pulmonary embolism (PE) ‘ and deep vein thrombosis(DVT). In a low-risk patient with negative D-dimer, PE or DVT can safely be ru...
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Abstract Introduction Although the efficacy of PD-L1 blockade has been evaluated in analyses that combine pharmacologically distinct antibodies, the specific efficacy and safety of...
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Clinical tria...

Back to Top