Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial, patients with moderately severe Covid-19 were assigned to receive either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation or usual-care thromboprophylaxis. At 21 days, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation resulted in a higher probability of survival until hospital discharge without organ support.

In a randomized trial, patients with severe Covid-19 were assigned to receive either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. At 21 days, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation did not improve hospital survival or the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support.

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease is part of the seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we recommend short-term treatment with subcutaneous (SC) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or, alternatively, IV unfractionated heparin (UFH) [both Grade 1A]. For patients with a high clinical suspicion of DVT, we recommend treatment with anticoagulants while awaiting the outcome of diagnostic tests (Grade 1C+). In acute DVT, we recommend initial treatment with LMWH or UFH for at least 5 days (Grade 1C), initiation of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) together with LMWH or UFH on the first treatment day, and discontinuation of heparin when the international normalized ratio (INR) is stable and > 2.0 (Grade 1A). For the duration and intensity of treatment for acute DVT of the leg, the recommendations include the following: for patients with a first episode of DVT secondary to a transient (reversible) risk factor, we recommend long-term treatment with a VKA for 3 months over treatment for shorter periods (Grade 1A). For patients with a first episode of idiopathic DVT, we recommend treatment with a VKA for at least 6 to 12 months (Grade 1A). We recommend that the dose of VKA be adjusted to maintain a target INR of 2.5 (INR range, 2.0 to 3.0) for all treatment durations (Grade 1A). We recommend against high-intensity VKA therapy (INR range, 3.1 to 4.0) [Grade 1A] and against low-intensity therapy (INR range, 1.5 to 1.9) compared to INR range of 2.0 to 3.0 (Grade 1A). For the prevention of the postthrombotic syndrome, we recommend the use of an elastic compression stocking (Grade 1A). For patients with objectively confirmed nonmassive PE, we recommend acute treatment with SC LMWH or, alternatively, IV UFH (both Grade 1A). For most patients with pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend clinicians not use systemic thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1A). For the duration and intensity of treatment for PE, the recommendations are similar to those for DVT.

Patients admitted to an ICU were randomly assigned to receive intermittent pneumatic compression plus pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis.

In a randomized trial, 1050 patients with cancer who had acute venous thromboembolism were assigned to receive either dalteparin or edoxaban for 6 to 12 months. Edoxaban was noninferior to dalteparin with respect to the outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding.

The dose of protamine required following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is often determined by the dose of heparin required pre-CPB, expressed as a fixed ratio. Dosing based on mathematical models of heparin clearance is postulated to improve protamine dosing precision and coagulation. We hypothesised that protamine dosing based on a 2-compartment model would improve thromboelastography (TEG) parameters and reduce the dose of protamine administered, relative to a fixed ratio. We undertook a 2-stage, adaptive randomised controlled trial, allocating 228 participants to receive protamine dosed according to a mathematical model of heparin clearance or a fixed ratio of 1 mg of protamine for every 100 IU of heparin required to establish anticoagulation pre-CPB. A planned, blinded interim analysis was undertaken after the recruitment of 50% of the study cohort. Following this, the randomisation ratio was adapted from 1:1 to 1:1.33 to increase recruitment to the superior arm while maintaining study power. At the conclusion of trial recruitment, we had randomised 121 patients to the intervention arm and 107 patients to the control arm. The primary endpoint was kaolin TEG r-time measured 3 minutes after protamine administration at the end of CPB. Secondary endpoints included ratio of kaolin TEG r-time pre-CPB to the same metric following protamine administration, requirement for allogeneic red cell transfusion, intercostal catheter drainage at 4 hours postoperatively, and the requirement for reoperation due to bleeding. The trial was listed on a clinical trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03532594). Participants were recruited between April 2018 and August 2019. Those in the intervention/model group had a shorter mean kaolin r-time (6.58 [SD 2.50] vs. 8.08 [SD 3.98] minutes; p = 0.0016) post-CPB. The post-protamine thromboelastogram of the model group was closer to pre-CPB parameters (median pre-CPB to post-protamine kaolin r-time ratio 0.96 [IQR 0.78-1.14] vs. 0.75 [IQR 0.57-0.99]; p < 0.001). We found no evidence of a difference in median mediastinal/pleural drainage at 4 hours postoperatively (140 [IQR 75-245] vs. 135 [IQR 94-222] mL; p = 0.85) or requirement (as a binary outcome) for packed red blood cell transfusion at 24 hours postoperatively (19 [15.8%] vs. 14 [13.1%] p = 0.69). Those in the model group had a lower median protamine dose (180 [IQR 160-210] vs. 280 [IQR 250-300] mg; p < 0.001). Important limitations of this study include an unblinded design and lack of generalisability to certain populations deliberately excluded from the study (specifically children, patients with a total body weight >120 kg, and patients requiring therapeutic hypothermia to <28°C). Using a mathematical model to guide protamine dosing in patients following CPB improved TEG r-time and reduced the dose administered relative to a fixed ratio. No differences were detected in postoperative mediastinal/pleural drainage or red blood cell transfusion requirement in our cohort of low-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Unique identifier NCT03532594.

Objectives To assess whether high doses of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) (i.e. Enoxaparin 70 IU/kg twice daily) compared to standard prophylactic dose (i.e., Enoxaparin 4000 IU once day), in hospitalized patients with COVID19 not requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation [IMV], are: more effective in preventing clinical worsening, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events, whichever comes first: Death Acute Myocardial Infarction [AMI] Objectively confirmed, symptomatic arterial or venous thromboembolism [TE] Need of either: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Cpap) or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) or IMV in patients who at randomisation were receiving standard oxygen therapy IMV in patients who at randomisation were receiving non-invasive mechanical ventilation Similar in terms of major bleeding risk Trial design Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority, open label, parallel group, two arms (1:1 ratio), in-hospital study. Participants Inpatients will be recruited from 7 Italian Academic and non-Academic Internal Medicine Units, 2 Infectious Disease Units and 1 Respiratory Disease Unit. Inclusion Criteria (all required) Age > 18 and < 80 years Positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic (on pharyngeal swab of deep airways material) Severe pneumonia defined by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: Respiratory Rate ≥25 breaths /min Arterial oxygen saturation≤93% at rest on ambient air PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 mmHg Coagulopathy, defined by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: D-dimer >4 times the upper level of normal reference range Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy (SIC) score >4 No need of IMV Exclusion Criteria Age <18 and >80 years IMV Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 80.000 mm3) Coagulopathy: INR >1.5, aPTT ratio > 1.4 Impaired renal function (eGFR calculated by CKD-EPI Creatinine equation < 30 ml/min) Known hypersensitivity to enoxaparin History of heparin induced thrombocytopenia Presence of an active bleeding or a pathology susceptible of bleeding in presence of anticoagulation (e.g. recent haemorrhagic stroke, peptic ulcer, malignant cancer at high risk of haemorrhage, recent neurosurgery or ophthalmic surgery, vascular aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations) Concomitant anticoagulant treatment for other indications (e.g. atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, prosthetic heart valves) Concomitant double antiplatelet therapy Administration of therapeutic doses of LMWH, fondaparinux, or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for more than 72 hours before randomization; prophylactic doses are allowed Pregnancy or breastfeeding or positive pregnancy test Presence of other severe diseases impairing life expectancy (e.g. patients are not expected to survive 28 days given their pre-existing medical condition) Lack or withdrawal of informed consent Intervention and comparator Control Group (Low-Dose LMWH): patients in this group will be administered Enoxaparin (Inhixa®) at standard prophylactic dose (i.e., 4000 UI subcutaneously once day). Intervention Group (High-Dose LMWH): patients in this group will be administered Enoxaparin (Inhixa®) at dose of 70 IU/kg every 12 hours, as reported in the following table. This dose is commonly used in Italy when a bridging strategy is required for the management of surgery or invasive procedures in patients taking anti-vitamin K oral anticoagulants Body Weight (kg) Enoxaparin dose every 12 hours (IU) <50 2000 50-69 4000 70-89 6000 90-110 8000 >110 10000 The treatment with Enoxaparin will be initiated soon after randomization (maximum allowed starting time 12h after randomization). The treatment will be administered every 12 hours in the intervention group and every 24 hours in the control group. Treatments will be administered in the two arms until hospital discharge or the primary outcomes detailed below occur. Main outcomes Primary Efficacy Endpoint: Clinical worsening, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events, whichever comes first: Death Acute Myocardial Infarction [AMI] Objectively confirmed, symptomatic arterial or venous thromboembolism [TE] Need of either: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Cpap) or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) or IMV in patients who at randomisation were in standard oxygen therapy by delivery interfaces Need for IMV, in patients who at randomisation were in Cpap or NIV Time to the occurrence of each of these events will be recorded. Clinical worsening will be analysed as a binary outcome as well as a time-to-event one. Secondary Efficacy Endpoints: Any of the following events occurring within the hospital stay Death Acute Myocardial Infarction [AMI] Objectively confirmed, symptomatic arterial or venous thromboembolism [TE] Need of either: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Cpap) or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) or IMV in patients who at randomisation were in standard oxygen therapy by delivery interfaces Need for IMV in patients who at randomisation were in Cpap or NIV Improvement of laboratory parameters of disease severity, including: o D-dimer level o Plasma fibrinogen levels o Mean Platelet Volume o Lymphocyte/Neutrophil ratio o IL-6 plasma levels Mortality at 30 days Information about patients’ status will be sought in those who are discharged before 30 days on Day 30 from randomisation. Time to the occurrence of each of these events will be recorded. Each of these events will be analysed as a binary outcome and as a time-to-event one. Primary safety endpoint: Major bleeding, defined as an acute clinically overt bleeding associated with one or more of the following: Decrease in haemoglobin of 2 g/dl or more; Transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells; Bleeding that occurs in at least one of the following critical sites [intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular (within the corpus of the eye; thus, a conjunctival bleed is not an intraocular bleed), pericardial, intra-articular, intramuscular with compartment syndrome, or retroperitoneal]; Bleeding that is fatal (defined as a bleeding event that was the primary cause of death or contributed directly to death); Bleeding that necessitates surgical intervention Time to the occurrence of each of these events will be recorded. Each of these events will be analysed as a binary outcome and as a time-to-event one. Secondary safety endpoint: Clinically Relevant non-major bleeding, defined as an acute clinically overt bleeding that does not meet the criteria for major and consists of: Any bleeding compromising hemodynamic Spontaneous hematoma larger than 25 cm2, or 100 cm2 if there was a traumatic cause Intramuscular hematoma documented by ultrasonography Epistaxis or gingival bleeding requiring tamponade or other medical intervention Bleeding from venipuncture for >5 minutes Haematuria that was macroscopic and was spontaneous or lasted for more than 24 hours after invasive procedures Haemoptysis, hematemesis or spontaneous rectal bleeding requiring endoscopy or other medical intervention Any other bleeding requiring temporary cessation of a study drug. Time to the occurrence of each of these events will be recorded. Each of these events will be analysed as a binary outcome and as a time-to-event one. Randomisation Randomisation (with a 1:1 randomisation ratio) will be centrally performed by using a secure, web-based system, which will be developed by the Methodological and Statistical Unit at the Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena. Randomisation stratified by 4 factors: 1) Gender (M/F); 2) Age (<75/≥75 years); 3) BMI (<30/≥30); 4) Comorbidities (0-1/>2) with random variable block sizes will be generated by STATA software. The web-based system will guarantee the allocation concealment. Blinding (masking) The study is conceived as open-label: patients and all health-care personnel involved in the study will be aware of the assigned group. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The target sample size is based on the hypothesis that LMWH administered at high doses versus low doses will significantly reduce the risk of clinical worsening. The overall sample size in this study is expected to be 300 with 150 in the Low-Dose LMWH control group and 150 in the High-Dose LMWH intervention group, recruited over 10-11 months. Assuming an alpha of 5% (two tailed) and a percentage of patients who experience clinical worsening in the control group being between 25% and 30%, the study will have 80% power to detect at least 50% relative reduction in the risk of death between low and high doses of heparin. Trial Status Protocol version 1.2 of 11/05/2020. Recruitment start (expected): 08/06/2020 Recruitment finish (expected): 30/04/2021 Trial registration EudraCT 2020-001972-13, registered on April 17th, 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

In this trial, patients with atrial fibrillation who required warfarin interruption for an elective procedure were assigned to either bridging anticoagulation or placebo. Forgoing bridging was noninferior to bridging for arterial thromboembolism and superior for major bleeding. For patients with atrial fibrillation who are receiving warfarin and require an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, the need for bridging anticoagulation during perioperative interruption of warfarin treatment has long been uncertain. 1 – 3 Each year, this common clinical scenario affects approximately one in six warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. 4 , 5 Warfarin treatment is typically stopped 5 days before an elective procedure to allow its anticoagulant effect to wane; it is resumed after the procedure, when hemostasis is secured, at which point 5 to 10 days of treatment is required to attain therapeutic anticoagulation. 6 , 7 During the interruption of . . .

Objective This study aimed to observe and compare the efficacy and safety of different anticoagulants combined with immunotherapy and chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods In this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial, treatment-naïve subjects with stage I I I B– I V NSCLC were enrolled and randomly assigned to the control group (tislelizumab + chemotherapy), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) group (LMWH + tislelizumab + chemotherapy), and rivaroxaban group (rivaroxaban + tislelizumab + chemotherapy). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results In this study, 143 patients were enrolled, including 46 in the control group, 48 in the LMWH group, and 49 in the rivaroxaban group. The median PFS of the control, LMWH, and rivaroxaban groups was 8.5 months (95%CI: 7.6–9.4), 8.6 months (95% CI: 8.1–9.1), and 11.2 months (95% CI: 9.4–13.0), respectively. Kaplan–Meier curve analysis showed no significant difference in PFS between the LMWH and control groups (HR = 1.041, 95% CI: 0.676–1.604; P  = 0.852). The rivaroxaban group had significantly higher PFS than the control (HR = 0.766, 95% CI: 0.623–0.967; P  = 0.021) and LMWH groups (HR = 0.582, 95% CI: 0.376–0.901; P  = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in the ORR, complete response, partial response, DCR, or stable disease among the three groups (all P  > 0.05). Conclusions Rivaroxaban combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy has potential advantages in NSCLC treatment. It may enhance the antitumor efficacy by regulating immune functions, thereby prolonging the PFS of patients. Trial registration Trial Registration: ChiCTR2500106653.