Background:Anticoagulants are promising regimens for treating coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19).However,whether prophylactic or intermediate-to-therapeutic dosage is optimal remains under active discussion.Methods:We...Background:Anticoagulants are promising regimens for treating coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19).However,whether prophylactic or intermediate-to-therapeutic dosage is optimal remains under active discussion.Methods:We comprehensively searched PubMed,Embase,Scopus,Web of Science,Cochrane Library,ClinicalTrials,and MedRxiv databases on April 26,2022.Two independent researchers conducted literature selection and data extraction separately according to predetermined criteria.Notably,this is the first meta-analysis on COVID-19,taking serious consideration regarding the dosage overlap between the 2 comparison groups of prophylactic anticoagulation(PA)and intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation(I-TA).Results:We included 11 randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and 36 cohort studies with 27,051 COVID-19 patients.By analyzing all the RCTs,there was no significant difference in mortality between the PA and I-TA groups,which was further confirmed by trial sequential analysis(TSA)(odds ratio[OR]:0.93;95%confidence interval[CI]:0.71–1.22;P=0.61;TSA adjusted CI:0.71–1.26).The rate of major bleeding was remarkably higher in the I-TA group than in the PA group,despite adjusting for TSA(OR:1.73;95%CI:1.15–2.60;P=0.009;TSA adjusted CI:1.09–2.58).RCTs have supported the beneficial effect of I-TA in reducing thrombotic events.After including all studies,mortality in the I-TA group was significantly higher than in the PA group(OR:1.38;95%CI:1.15–1.66;P=0.0005).The rate of major bleeding was similar to the analysis from RCTs(OR:2.24;95%CI:1.86–2.69;P<0.00001).There was no distinct difference in the rate of thrombotic events between the 2 regimen groups.In addition,in both critical and noncritical subgroups,I-TA failed to reduce mortality but increased major bleeding rate compared with PA,as shown in meta-analysis of all studies,as well as RCTs only.Meta-regression of all studies suggested that there was no relationship between the treatment effect and the overall risk of mortality or major bleeding(P=0.14,P=0.09,respectively).Conclusion:I-TA is not superior to PA for treating COVID-19 because it fails to lower the mortality rate but increases the major bleeding rate in both critical and noncritical patients.展开更多
基金supported by the National Key R&D Program of China(2020YFC0846600,2020YFC1512700,2020YFC1512705,2020YFC1512703)National S&T Fundamental Resources Investigation Project(2018FY100600,2018FY100602)+2 种基金Taishan Pandeng Scholar Program of Shandong Province(tspd20181220)Taishan Young Scholar Program of Shandong Province(tsqn20161065,tsqn201812129)Youth Top-Talent Project of National Ten Thousand Talents Plan,and Qilu Young Scholar Program.
文摘Background:Anticoagulants are promising regimens for treating coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19).However,whether prophylactic or intermediate-to-therapeutic dosage is optimal remains under active discussion.Methods:We comprehensively searched PubMed,Embase,Scopus,Web of Science,Cochrane Library,ClinicalTrials,and MedRxiv databases on April 26,2022.Two independent researchers conducted literature selection and data extraction separately according to predetermined criteria.Notably,this is the first meta-analysis on COVID-19,taking serious consideration regarding the dosage overlap between the 2 comparison groups of prophylactic anticoagulation(PA)and intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation(I-TA).Results:We included 11 randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and 36 cohort studies with 27,051 COVID-19 patients.By analyzing all the RCTs,there was no significant difference in mortality between the PA and I-TA groups,which was further confirmed by trial sequential analysis(TSA)(odds ratio[OR]:0.93;95%confidence interval[CI]:0.71–1.22;P=0.61;TSA adjusted CI:0.71–1.26).The rate of major bleeding was remarkably higher in the I-TA group than in the PA group,despite adjusting for TSA(OR:1.73;95%CI:1.15–2.60;P=0.009;TSA adjusted CI:1.09–2.58).RCTs have supported the beneficial effect of I-TA in reducing thrombotic events.After including all studies,mortality in the I-TA group was significantly higher than in the PA group(OR:1.38;95%CI:1.15–1.66;P=0.0005).The rate of major bleeding was similar to the analysis from RCTs(OR:2.24;95%CI:1.86–2.69;P<0.00001).There was no distinct difference in the rate of thrombotic events between the 2 regimen groups.In addition,in both critical and noncritical subgroups,I-TA failed to reduce mortality but increased major bleeding rate compared with PA,as shown in meta-analysis of all studies,as well as RCTs only.Meta-regression of all studies suggested that there was no relationship between the treatment effect and the overall risk of mortality or major bleeding(P=0.14,P=0.09,respectively).Conclusion:I-TA is not superior to PA for treating COVID-19 because it fails to lower the mortality rate but increases the major bleeding rate in both critical and noncritical patients.
