Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Intestinal microsporidiosis: a hidden risk in rheumatic disease patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy combined with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs?

OBJECTIVE: Immunosuppressed patients are at risk of microsporidiosis, and this parasitosis has an increased rate of dissemination in this population. Our objective was to evaluate the presence of microsporidiosis and other intestinal parasites in rheumatic disease patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (47 with rheumatoid arthritis, 31 with ankylosing spondylitis and 11 with psoriatic arthritis) and 92 healthy control patients were enrolled in the study. Three stool samples and cultures were collected from each subject. RESULTS: The frequency of microsporidia was significantly higher in rheumatic disease patients than in control subjects (36 vs. 4%, respectively; p<0.0001), as well as in those with rheumatic diseases (32 vs. 4%, respectively; p<0.0001), ankylosing spondylitis (45 vs. 4%, respectively; p<0.0001) and psoriatic arthritis (40 vs. 4%, respectively; p<0.0001), despite a similar social-economic class distribution in both the patient and control groups (p = 0.1153). Of note, concomitant fecal leukocytes were observed in the majority of the microsporidia-positive patients (79.5%). Approximately 80% of the patients had gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea (26%), abdominal pain (31%) and weight loss (5%), although the frequencies of these symptoms were comparable in patients with and without this infection (p>0.05). Rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis disease activity parameters were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). The duration of anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid use were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: We have documented that microsporidiosis with intestinal mucosa disruption is frequent in patients undergoing concomitant anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy. Impaired host defenses due to the combination of the underlying disease and the immunosuppressive therapy is the most likely explanation for this finding, and this increased susceptibility reinforces the need for the investigation of microsporidia and implementation of treatment strategies in this population.

Intestinal microsporidiosis: a hidden risk in rheumatic disease patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy combined with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs?

OBJECTIVE: Immunosuppressed patients are at risk of microsporidiosis, and this parasitosis has an increased rate of dissemination in this population. Our objective was to evaluate the presence of microsporidiosis and other intestinal parasites in rheumatic disease patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (47 with rheumatoid arthritis, 31 with ankylosing spondylitis and 11 with psoriatic arthritis) and 92 healthy control patients were enrolled in the study. Three stool samples and cultures were collected from each subject. RESULTS: The frequency of microsporidia was significantly higher in rheumatic disease patients than in control subjects (36 vs. 4 percent, respectively; p<0.0001), as well as in those with rheumatic diseases (32 vs. 4 percent, respectively; p<0.0001), ankylosing spondylitis (45 vs. 4 percent, respectively; p<0.0001) and psoriatic arthritis (40 vs. 4 percent, respectively; p<0.0001), despite a similar social-economic class distribution in both the patient and control groups (p = 0.1153). Of note, concomitant fecal leukocytes were observed in the majority of the microsporidia-positive patients (79.5 percent). Approximately 80 percent of the patients had gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea (26 percent), abdominal pain (31 percent) and weight loss (5 percent), although the frequencies of these symptoms were comparable in patients with and without this infection (p>0.05). Rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis disease activity parameters were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). The duration of anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid use were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: We have documented that microsporidiosis with intestinal mucosa disruption is frequent in patients undergoing concomitant anti-tumor necrosis factor/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy. Impaired host defenses due to the combination of the underlying disease and the immunosuppressive therapy is the most likely explanation for this finding, and this increased susceptibility reinforces the need for the investigation of microsporidia and implementation of treatment strategies in this population.