Search

Background: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown., Methods: This article reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding., Results: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]: 62 [50, 71] years; 237 [42.2%] women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, p  = 0.11). Findings were similar for other efficacy outcomes, and in the landmark analysis from days 31 to 90 (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.45-5.06). There were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24)., Conclusion: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up., Competing Interests: Dr. Parikh reports being on the Advisory Board for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, CSI, Philips, Janssen; research grants: Abbott, Boston Scientific, Surmodics, TriReme Medical, Shockwave Medical; and receiving consulting fees from Terumo and Abiomed. Dr. Gupta received payment from the Arnold & Porter Law Firm for work related to the Sanofi clopidogrel litigation and from the Ben C. Martin Law Firm for work related to the Cook inferior vena cava filter litigation. Dr. Gupta holds equity in a health care telecardiology startup, Heartbeat Health, Inc. and received consulting fees from Edwards LifeSciences. Dr. Madhavan has received support from an institutional grant by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to Columbia University Irving Medical Center (T32 HL007854). Dr. Sethi reports honoraria from Janssen and Chiesi and research grant support from the American Heart Association. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support to Brigham and Women's Hospital from EKOS, a BTG International Group company, Bayer, the Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Portola, and Janssen. He has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Thrombolex. Dr. Kirtane reports institutional funding to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, and ReCor Medical. In addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for speaking engagements and/or consulting. Personal: travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr. Van Tassell received research support from Novartis, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Olatec Therapeutics, and Serpin Pharma. He is a consultant of R-Pharm, Serpin Pharma. Dr. Stone has received speaker or other honoraria from Cook, Terumo, and Orchestra Biomed; served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, Matrizyme, Cardiomech; and has received equity or options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. Dr. Lip reports consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo. No fees are received personally. Dr. Krumholz reports personal fees from UnitedHealth, personal fees from IBM Watson Health, personal fees from Element Science, personal fees from Aetna, personal fees from Facebook, personal fees from Siegfried & Jensen Law Firm, personal fees from Arnold & Porter Law Firm, personal fees from Ben C. Martin Law Firm, personal fees from National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Beijing, ownership of HugoHealth, ownership of Refactor Health, contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, grants from Medtronic and the Food and Drug Administration, grants from Medtronic and Johnson and Johnson, grants from Shenzhen Center for Health Information, and is a Venture Partner at FPrime, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bikdeli reports that he is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters. All other authors report no relevant Enoxaparin was provided through Alborz Darou, Pooyesh Darou, and Caspian Pharmaceuticals companies, and atorvastatin and matching placebo were provided by Sobhan Darou. None of these companies were study sponsors and they had no other role and will not have a role in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the ongoing results or the decision to submit the resultant manuscript(s)., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis., Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020., Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated., Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.