Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A randomised controlled pilot study

dc.contributor.authorDeNucci, Gilberto
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, Tom
dc.contributor.authorSverdloff, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorBadadopulos, Tainah
dc.contributor.authorWoodcock, Ashley
dc.contributor.authorShute, Janis
dc.contributor.authorGuazelli, Pedro Renato
dc.contributor.authorGerbase, Luis Frederico
dc.contributor.authorMourao, Paulo A S
dc.contributor.authorSingh, Dave
dc.contributor.authorvan Haren, Frank
dc.contributor.authorPage, Clive
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-16T22:49:42Z
dc.date.available2024-12-16T22:49:42Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.date.updated2024-01-21T07:15:23Z
dc.description.abstractThere is a strong scientific rationale to use nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in treating patients with COVID-19. This pilot study investigated whether nebulised UFH was safe and had any impact on mortality, length of hospitalisation and clinical progression, in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This parallel group, open label, randomised trial included adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to two hospitals in Brazil. One hundred patients were planned to be randomised to either “standard of care” (SOC) or SOC plus nebulized UFH. The trial was stopped after randomisation of 75 patients due to falling COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. Significance tests were 1-sided test (10% significance level). The key analysis populations were intention to treat (ITT) and modified ITT (mITT) which excluded (from both arms) subjects admitted to ITU or who died within 24 h of randomisation. In the ITT population (n = 75), mortality was numerically lower for nebulised UFH (6 out of 38 patients; 15.8%) versus SOC (10 out of 37 patients; 27.0%), but not statistically significant; odds ratio (OR) 0.51, p = 0.24. However, in the mITT population, nebulised UFH reduced mortality (OR 0.2, p = 0.035). Length of hospital stay was similar between groups, but at day 29, there was a greater improvement in ordinal score following treatment with UFH in the ITT and mITT populations (p = 0.076 and p = 0.012 respectively), while mechanical ventilation rates were lower with UFH in the mITT population (OR 0.31; p = 0.08). Nebulised UFH did not cause any significant adverse events. In conclusion, nebulised UFH added to SOC in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated and showed clinical benefit, particularly in patients who received at least 6 doses of heparin.
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors acknowledge the generous financial support of the Jon Moulton Charity Trust that made this trial possible and the help of Dr Helen Critchley.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn1094-5539
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733731445
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherAcademic Press
dc.rights© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
dc.sourcePulmonary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
dc.subjectCOVID-19
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2
dc.subjectInhaled heparin
dc.subjectNebulised heparin
dc.subjectUnfractionated heparin
dc.subjectRespiratory failure
dc.subjectRandomised controlled trial
dc.titleInhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A randomised controlled pilot study
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage7
local.contributor.affiliationDeNucci, Gilberto, University of Sao Paulo
local.contributor.affiliationWilkinson, Tom, University of Southampton
local.contributor.affiliationSverdloff, Carlos, Department of Respiratory Medicine
local.contributor.affiliationBadadopulos, Tainah, University of Campinas
local.contributor.affiliationWoodcock, Ashley, University of Manchester
local.contributor.affiliationShute, Janis, University of Portsmouth
local.contributor.affiliationGuazelli, Pedro Renato, Sao Roque Hospital
local.contributor.affiliationGerbase, Luis Frederico, Santa Casa de Sorocaba Hospital
local.contributor.affiliationMourao, Paulo A S, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
local.contributor.affiliationSingh, Dave, University of Manchester
local.contributor.affiliationvan Haren, Frank, College of Health and Medicine, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationPage, Clive, King's College London
local.contributor.authoremailu5325459@anu.edu.au
local.contributor.authoruidvan Haren, Frank, u5325459
local.description.embargo2099-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor320103 - Respiratory diseases
local.identifier.absfor321402 - Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB40951
local.identifier.citationvolume80
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.pupt.2023.102212
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85151278010
local.identifier.uidSubmittedBya383154
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/
local.type.statusPublished Version
publicationvolume.volumeNumber80

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
1-s2.0-S109455392300024X-main.pdf
Size:
1.32 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format