EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF MOROCTOCOG ALFA IN AN OPEN, MULTICENTER, PROSPECTIVE, CLINICAL STUDY IN CHILDREN 2 TO 6 YEARS OF AGE WITH SEVERE HEMOPHILIA A

The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of the moroctocog alfa (Octofactor) in children aged 2-6 with haemophilia A. Materials and methods of research : six patients between 2 and 6 years of age (average age 4.3±0.8 years) were included in the open multicenter prospective clinical trial. The efficacy of the drug was assessed against the background of the introduction of 30±10 IU/kg every 2–3 days, the safety was assessed by the frequency and causality of adverse reactions. Results: 7 post-traumatic bleeding was registered. The average prophylactic dose of the drug is 37.84±7.13 IU/kg. The dose of the drug for stopping bleeding was 1000 IU. 2 adverse events have been reported that are not related to moroсtocog alfa. Conclusion: the obtained data indicate the efficacy and safety of moroсtocog alfa in the study group of patients.

How to recognize and manage COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

COVID-19 is frequently associated with abnormalities on coagulation testing and a coagulopathy driven by inflammation, intravascular coagulation activation, and microvascular thrombosis. Elevated D-dimer is the most common finding and is a predictor of adverse outcomes including thrombosis, critical illness, and death. Although COVID-19-associated coagulopathy has some similarities to disseminated intravascular coagulation, the platelet count is usually preserved, coagulation times are usually normal or minimally prolonged, and thrombosis is more common than bleeding, at least in noncritically ill patients. Bleeding is uncommon but may be a significant problem in critically ill patients, including those who may develop a consumptive coagulopathy with frank disseminated intravascular coagulation and those on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Blood product support to correct coagulopathy is reserved for bleeding patients or those requiring invasive procedures. Current recommendations suggest that all hospitalized patients should receive at least a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation. Results from a multiplatform randomized clinical trial suggest that therapeutically dosed anticoagulation may improve outcomes, including the need for organ support and mortality in moderately ill patients but not in those requiring critical care. The results of ongoing trials evaluating the impact of different antithrombotic strategies (therapeutic agents and intensity) on COVID-19 outcomes are eagerly awaited and are expected to have important implications for patient management. We also discuss COVID-19 vaccine-associated cytopenias and bleeding as well as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, in which thrombosis is associated with thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and, frequently, hypofibrinogenemia.

High versus Standard Intensity of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis and Dosing Optimization of Prophylactic Fluconazole in Japanese Patients with Hematological Malignancy

We conducted population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis and Monte Carlo simulations to determine the appropriate prophylactic dose of fluconazole to prevent invasive candidiasis in patients with hematological malignancies. Patients receiving chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at Yokohama City University Hospital between November 2018 and March 2020 were included. Additionally, patients receiving oral fluconazole for prophylaxis were recruited. We set the free area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) = 50 as the target and determined the largest MIC (breakpoint MIC) that could achieve more than 90% probability of target attainment. The blood fluconazole concentration of 54 patients (119 points) was used for PPK analysis. The optimal model was the one-compartment model with first-order administration and first-order elimination incorporating creatinine clearance (CLcr) as a covariate of clearance and body weight as a covariate of distribution volume. We conducted Monte Carlo simulation with fluconazole at 200 mg/day or 400 mg/day dosing schedules and patient body weight and CLcr ranging from 40 to 70 kg and 40–140 mL/min, respectively. The breakpoint MICs on the first dosing day and at steady state were 0.5–1.0 μg/mL and 1.0–2.0 μg/mL for 200 mg/day and 1.0–2.0 μg/mL and 2.0–4.0 μg/mL for 400 mg/day, respectively. The recommended dose was 400–700 mg/day for the loading dose and 200–400 mg/day for the maintenance dose. Our findings suggest that the optimal prophylactic dose of fluconazole in hematological malignancy patients depends on CLcr and body weight, and a sufficient loading and maintenance dose may be needed to completely prevent invasive candidiasis.

Beneficial Effects of Anticoagulants on the Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients

(1) Background: Severe coronavirus disease can be complicated by a hypercoagulable state in conjunction with sepsis, increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study aimed to observe the effect of anticoagulants on 30-day high-dependency unit (HDU) outcomes of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients of a tertiary care hospital at Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (2) Methods: A retrospective propensity-based case–control study was carried out to examine COVID-19 patients admitted to the HDU. Patient groups who did and did not receive anticoagulants were labeled as “anticoagulant” and “non-anticoagulant”, respectively. Case–control matching (1:1) was performed via propensity scores (calculated by a regression model). Kaplan–Meier and logrank analyses were used to study survival probability. Single predictors of outcomes were determined by Cox regression analysis. (3) Results: The anticoagulant group had elevated D-dimers, advanced age, more comorbidities and a higher frequency of severe disease compared to the non-anticoagulant group (p < 0.05). Therefore, 47 cases and 47 matched controls were selected based on their propensity scores. The primary endpoint was outcome (survived vs. died). The 30-day in-HDU mortality was 25.5% for cases and 61.7% for controls (p = 0.0004). The median time from admission to death was 16 days for the case group and 7 days for the control group (p < 0.0001). The 30-day mortality was 19.1% for the enoxaparin group and 16.4% for the heparin group (p > 0.05). Enoxaparin (therapeutic and prophylactic doses) and heparin (prophylactic dose) were found to be independent factors affecting the outcomes of these patients (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulants play a beneficial role in reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients. Both anticoagulant formulations, enoxaparin (therapeutic and prophylactic doses) and heparin (prophylactic dose), were associated with improving survival among these patients.

Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism and Hemorrhage Following Interruption of Anticoagulation at Delivery

Background: Current guidelines for regional anesthesia advise for the discontinuation of prophylactic and therapeutic low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) 12 hours and 24 hours, respectively prior to the use of neuraxial anesthesia (NA) for obstetric patients. Re initiating a prophylactic dose 12 hours following epidural catheter insertion/spinal anesthesia (SA) and at least 4 hours following epidural catheter removal is also recommended. There are limited data on the recurrent risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding using these standards. We conducted a retrospective single center study to assess the risk of VTE and/or bleeding in pregnant women using these criteria. Methods: Consecutive patients from 2013 to 2018 at Mount Sinai Hospital, a university affiliated tertiary care center in Toronto, Canada who were prescribed therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH antenatally and postpartum and who had NA were included. Hospital records were reviewed to determine the indication and dosage of LMWH, presence of thrombophilia, time of first LMWH injection postpartum, the mode of neuraxial anesthesia and delivery, the time of epidural catheter/spinal anesthesia, the time of epidural catheter removal, laboratory parameters and comorbid illnesses. Patients requiring therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH were assessed in the Hematology clinic and were advised to discontinue anticoagulation according to current recommendations. The primary outcomes were frequency of VTE, spinal hematoma and volume of postpartum blood loss. Statistical Analysis: Continuous variables were summarized as medians and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were summarized as percentages. Characteristics associated with VTE and hemorrhage were analyzed using regression analysis. Results: Of 169 pregnancies, 158 fulfilled criteria, and 110 had complete data for the time of epidural catheter removal and initiation of LMWH. Median age was 34 (IQR 5) years and median weight 90 (IQR 70) kgs. Diagnoses included antiphospholipid syndrome, Budd Chiari, provoked and unprovoked VTE. Median platelet count at delivery was 185 (IQR 76) x 10(9)/L. Thirty-three percent were using concomitant ASA antenatally. Forty-four percent (n=48) had a vaginal delivery (VD). Sixty five (59%) had epidural anesthesia, 43 (39%) had SA and, two had combined spinal/epidural anesthesia. Median time to restarting LMWH was 7.8 (IQR 4.7) hours from epidural catheter removal/spinal insertion and 9 (IQR 3.9) hours from SA. There were no spinal hematomas. Median blood loss was 500 (IQR 400) ml. One patient, who received prophylactic dose LMWH antepartum, had a Caesarean delivery, spinal anesthesia and a prophylactic dose re-started 13.7 hours after SA, developed a delayed postpartum hemorrhage. One patient developed a VTE (1%). She developed a distal and superficial thrombus immediately after delivery. She was using antenatal prophylactic LMWH as she had an unprovoked VTE predating pregnancy, was heterozygous for the prothrombin gene mutation, had epidural anesthesia and VD. She received prophylactic LMWH three hours after catheter removal which was also 10 hours after catheter insertion. Limitations: Time of discontinuation of LMWH prior to induction could not be confirmed definitively as this was a retrospective review. Conclusion: Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to determine the safety of current recommendations of interrupting anticoagulation prior to regional anesthesia and delivery and to identify risk factors for hemorrhage and recurrent VTE to optimize anticoagulation regimens for these patients. Disclosures Malinowski: Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Tromboseprofylaxe na doorgemaakte Covid-19: een onopgelost raadsel

Thromboprophylaxis after discharge for COVID-19: an unsolved puzzle Whilst recovering from severe COVID-19, a 61-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with abrupt onset epigastric pain, nausea and constipation for 2 days. Four days earlier, he had been released from the hospital after 2 weeks of hospitalization for severe bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia. A CT scan of the abdomen revealed a splenic infarction despite treatment with a prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The incidence, pathophysiology and prevention of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy are discussed.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial

Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. Design Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. Setting 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. Participants 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). Interventions Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m 2 . At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). Conclusions In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085 .

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic bemiparin in hospitalized patients with non-severe COVID-19 (BEMICOP): an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial

Thrombophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is mandatory, unless contraindicated. Given the links between inflammation and thrombosis, the use of higher doses of anticoagulants could improve outcomes. We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in adult patients hospitalized with non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia and elevated D-dimer. Patients were randomized to therapeutic-dose bemiparin (115 IU/Kg daily) vs. standard prophylaxis (bemiparin 3,500 IU daily), for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, intensive care unit admission, need of mechanical ventilation support, development of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress and venous or arterial thrombosis within 10 days of enrollment. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). A prespecified interim analysis was performed when 40% of the planned study population was reached. From October 2020 to May 2021, 70 patients were randomized at 5 sites and 65 were included in the primary analysis; 32 patients allocated to therapeutic-dose and 33 to standard prophylactic-dose. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7 patients (21.9%) in the therapeutic-dose group and 6 patients (18.2%) in the prophylactic-dose (absolute risk difference 3.6% [95% CI, -16%- 24%]; odds ratio 1.26 [95% CI, 0.37-4.26]; p=0.95). Discharge in the first 10 days was possible in 66% and 79% of patients, respectively. No major bleeding event was registered. Therefore, in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with non-severe pneumonia but elevated D-dimer, the use of a short course of therapeutic-dose bemiparin did not improve clinical outcomes compared to standard prophylactic doses.

Heparin and its contribution to the treatment of COVID-19

The infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 presents changes in the coagulation processes such as venous thromboembolism (VTE) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and it has been shown that this coagulopathy is associated by some means with the mortality. Studies suggest that these anticoagulants reduced the mortality of hospitalized patients. However, the studies for this point are not demonstrative, since they are evaluated as multiple variables and the results obtained are not the answer to experimental designs with controlled variables. In most of the cases, the obtained responses are the result of isolated cases or experimental models that do not differentiate statistical data, probably because of the differences related to the study groups. However, in models adjusted for age and sex, the reduction in mortality was statistically significant in patients who were treated with heparins, even when other variables were added to the model. In view of this, there is no consensus regarding the dose and type of anticoagulant, between different countries and entities, but what is most often cited is the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in a prophylactic dose for all hospitalized patients with the disease. The use of anticoagulants such as heparins has suggested results applicable to the treatment of coagulopathy caused by COVID-19, which makes the subject important for the centralization and analysis of the results. In order to continue with the construction of knowledge around this theme, the objective of this work was to review the use of heparins in the treatment of COVID-19.