Clinical Outcomes With the Use of Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Anticoagulation in COVID-19

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients from two large, acute care hospitals in Western Connecticut. Both hospitals are located in Fairfield County, which had the highest incidence of infection in Connecticut with more than 24,000 cases of the virus to date²⁵. The protocol and subsequent work were granted exempt status by the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) Institutional Review Board under category #4(iii), as detailed in 45 CFR 46.104(d) and BRANY’s Standard Operating Procedure.

The study included adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID 19 (ICD-10 code B97.29, J12.89, J18.9, U07.1) between April 1 and April 25, 2020, and treated with AC during their inpatient stay. AC was defined as the therapeutic or prophylactic use of enoxaparin or heparin, both regimens started preemptively upon admission. Patients were excluded if they did not take enoxaparin or heparin during their inpatient stay or if they were on other forms of AC prior to or during their hospitalization. Demographic variables were collected via hospital billing inquiries, while the clinical variables were abstracted from patients’ medical records.

Main Outcomes and Predictors

The primary outcome measures were a dichotomous variable for death. The secondary outcome measure was mortality in patients with peak ≥ 200 mg/L.

The primary exposure variable was dose of AC. Therapeutic dosage for enoxaparin was defined as 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily or 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously daily or based on renal function, or higher doses titrated to anti-Factor Xa range of 0.6 to 1 IU/mL (for twice daily dosing) and 1 to 2 IU/mL (for daily dosing).²⁶ Prophylactic dosage for enoxaparin was defined as 30 or 40 mg subcutaneously every day. For heparin, therapeutic dosage was defined as intravenous heparin titrated to an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) between 70 and 110 sec, and prophylactic dosage was defined as 5000 units given subcutaneously every 8 hours. Patients were assigned to the therapeutic group if they preemptively received a therapeutic dosage of either medication at any time or the prophylaxis group if they only received prophylaxis for the duration of their inpatient stay. Patients who received therapeutic anticoagulation specifically for a thrombotic indication were excluded from this study. We recognize that the dichotomization of a time-varying variable may introduce some bias to the analysis. Thus, we created an alternative exposure variable for sensitivity analyses that defined AC as prophylactic or therapeutic dosage at time of admission.

Covariates

Numerous patient and treatment-related variables were included as possible confounders given their potential association with the outcomes (Table 1). Demographic variables included age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Race was defined as White, Black or African American, and others. Ethnicity was defined as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic. We also included body mass index, smoking status (never/ever), diabetes, current immunosuppression, prior history of heart disease, pulmonary disease, kidney disease, cancer, and hyperlipidemia. History of heart disease was defined as a dichotomous variable for any of the following: hypertension, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and other heart disease. History of any pulmonary disease included asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, obstructive sleep apnea, and other.

History of cancer and kidney disease were each a dichotomous variable reflecting either of these conditions. We included immunosuppression as a dichotomous variable that reflected diseases such as transplant, myelodysplasia, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and cancer. Cancer and immunosuppression had some overlap in patients. However, they were maintained as separate variables, because the correlation between the variables was less than 0.25.

Treatment-related variables included the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and treatment with antibiotics, Tocilizumab, Hydroxychloroquine, or Lopinavir/Ritonavir. We also included a dichotomous variable for peak CRP defined as < 200 mg/L or ≥ 200 mg/L to reflect severity. Additionally, we collected data on the outcome of receiving pRBC transfusion and the occurrence of an arteriovenous occlusive event.

Statistical methods

We performed all analyses with StateSE 16. We computed descriptive statistics as percentages of the total for dichotomous and categorical variables and mean with standard deviation for continuous. We also used Independent Student’s t-test to assess group differences for each continuous covariate and chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for dichotomous/categorical covariates. We accounted for missing data with list wise deletion, and set the alpha for statistical hypothesis testing at 0.05.

We used a multi-variable logistic regression model to determine risk differences in mortality given AC dosage. We developed the model according to a priori hypotheses on confounders that were both associated with our primary exposure and outcome and not in the causal pathway. We also verified model assumptions. We performed a sensitivity analysis and qualitatively assessed differences in effect size and direction with the alternative exposure variable. We used similar methods to assess differences in mortality among patients with CRP ≥200 mg/L.

We performed a post hoc investigation of the cause of death among patients in our cohort to explore the reason for the increased risk of death among patients on therapeutic dosage of anticoagulant. We computed descriptive statistics on the primary cause of death and election of comfort measures among all patients that expired.

Lastly, we assessed the difference in receiving pRBC transfusion and incidence of occlusive events among all patients on therapeutic and prophylactic AC with univariate logistic regression.

Participants

A total of 501 inpatients were initially identified as 18 years or older and positive for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 374 patients were included in this study following the application of exclusion criteria (Figure 1). There was limited missing data with most variables missing less than 1 to 5 percent (Table 1). Race had more than 20 percent missing data, because Hispanic was listed as race in some medical records. Thus, the race of the patient was unknown. List wise deletion for the multi-variable logistic model resulted in a final sample size of 351. The sub-group analysis to determine risk of mortality among patients with CRP ≥ 200 mg/L included 104 patients.

We provide descriptive statistics in Table 1. The average age was 64.7 years old, more than half of the sample was male (58.6%), and the majority was White (54.0%) and non-Hispanic (63.6%). Nearly all patients in our sample took enoxaparin at some time during their inpatient stay (93.5%), while less than one-fifth took heparin (14.8%). Some patients took both medications at different times, depending on their treatment requirements. Seventy-five (20.1%) patients were on therapeutic AC, and seventy-two patients expired (19.2%).

Risk differences in mortality

There was a statistically significant increase in the risk of mortality in the therapeutic AC group compared with the prophylactic AC group upon crude analysis (Table 2). The full logistic model included AC dosage, age, ethnicity, diabetes, history of cancer or heart disease, hyperlipidemia, peak CRP, intensive care, mechanical ventilation, and antibiotic use.

The risk of mortality was higher (aRR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.0, 4.9, p = 0.04) for patients on therapeutic AC when compared to prophylactic AC after controlling for all variables in the model (Table 2).

Sub-group analyses

We performed a sub-group analysis of patients with a CRP ≥ 200 mg/L to determine if there was a risk difference in mortality. We hypothesized that patients with evidence of severe disease may benefit from therapeutic AC. However, multi-variable logistic regression that included AC dosage, age, ethnicity, diabetes, history of cancer, history of any heart disease, intensive care, mechanical ventilation, and use of antibiotics, hydroxychloroquine, and tocilizumab demonstrated no difference in the risk of mortality between patients on therapeutic and prophylactic AC (aRR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.2, 4.5, p = 0.97) (Table 2).

Additionally, there was no difference found in the transfusion of pRBC or incidence of arteriovenous occlusive events across AC dosage on univariate analysis.

Sensitivity analyses

Qualitatively, we found there was little difference in the risk ratios in the sensitivity analyses for risk of mortality. However, the confidence intervals in the primary exposure variable were more precise than the alternative exposure variable. The conclusions remain the same regardless of the definition for therapeutic AC.

Post hoc analyses

The main causes of death among patients that expired are provided in Table 3. The majority of patients expired due to worsening oxygenation (71.8%) and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Patients also expired due to shock and multi-organ failure. Approximately 8% of patients died from other causes, including anoxic brain injury due to hemorrhage (n = 1), kidney dysfunction with inability to access hemodialysis port (n = 1), and failure to thrive with encephalopathy (n = 1). Additionally, 64.4% of patients elected to receive comfort measures only for end of life care.