Comparison of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4. METHODS: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients' hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Ten full-text manuscripts and five abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring EWR had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

Understanding the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-SARS-CoV axis: a comprehensive review.

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been declared a global pandemic with significant morbidity and mortality since first appearing in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. As many countries are grappling with the onset of their epidemics, pharmacotherapeutics remain lacking. The window of opportunity to mitigate downstream morbidity and mortality is narrow but remains open. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is crucial to the homeostasis of both the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Importantly, SARS-CoV-2 utilises and interrupts this pathway directly, which could be described as the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-SARS-CoV (RAAS-SCoV) axis. There exists significant controversy and confusion surrounding how anti-hypertensive agents might function along this pathway. This review explores the current state of knowledge regarding the RAAS-SCoV axis (informed by prior studies of SARS-CoV), how this relates to our currently evolving pandemic, and how these insights might guide our next steps in an evidence-based manner. OBSERVATIONS: This review discusses the role of the RAAS-SCoV axis in acute lung injury and the effects, risks and benefits of pharmacological modification of this axis. There may be an opportunity to leverage the different aspects of RAAS inhibitors to mitigate indirect viral-induced lung injury. Concerns have been raised that such modulation might exacerbate the disease. While relevant preclinical, experimental models to date favour a protective effect of RAAS-SCoV axis inhibition on both lung injury and survival, clinical data related to the role of RAAS modulation in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 remain limited. CONCLUSION: Proposed interventions for SARS-CoV-2 predominantly focus on viral microbiology and aim to inhibit viral cellular injury. While these therapies are promising, immediate use may not be feasible, and the time window of their efficacy remains a major unanswered question. An alternative approach is the modulation of the specific downstream pathophysiological effects caused by the virus that lead to morbidity and mortality. We propose a preponderance of evidence that supports clinical equipoise regarding the efficacy of RAAS-based interventions, and the imminent need for a multisite randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate the inhibition of the RAAS-SCoV axis on acute lung injury in COVID-19.