Association between oral anticoagulants and COVID-19 related outcomes: two cohort studies

  1. The OpenSAFELY Collaborative
  2. Angel YS Wong
  3. Laurie Tomlinson
  4. Jeremy P Brown
  5. William Elson
  6. Alex J Walker
  7. Anna Schultze
  8. Caroline E Morton
  9. David Evans
  10. Peter Inglesby
  11. Brian MacKenna
  12. Krishnan Bhaskaran
  13. Christopher T Rentsch
  14. Emma Powell
  15. Elizabeth Williamson
  16. Richard Croker
  17. Seb Bacon
  18. William Hulme
  19. Chris Bates
  20. Helen J Curtis
  21. Amir Mehrkar
  22. Jonathan Cockburn
  23. Helen I McDonald
  24. Rohini Mathur
  25. Kevin Wing
  26. Harriet Forbes
  27. Rosalind M Eggo
  28. Stephen JW Evans
  29. Liam Smeeth
  30. Ben Goldacre
  31. Ian J Douglas
1 evaluations Published on
Read the full article Related papers
This article on Sciety

Abstract

Objectives

We investigated the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes, comparing current OAC use versus non-use in Study 1; and warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Study 2.

Design

Two cohort studies, on behalf of NHS England.

Setting

Primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England.

Participants

Study 1: 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA□DS□-VASc score of 2. Study 2: 372,746 people with non-valvular AF.

Main outcome measures

Time to test for SARS-CoV-2, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 related hospital admission, COVID-19 deaths or non-COVID-19 deaths in Cox regression.

Results

In Study 1, we included 52,416 current OAC users and 18,048 non-users. We observed no difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 associated with current use (adjusted HR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.05) versus non-use. We observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR, 0.73, 95%CI, 0.60 to 0.90), and COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.69, 95%CI, 0.49 to 0.97) associated with current use versus non-use. In Study 2, we included 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. We observed a lower risk of COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.79, 95%CI, 0.76 to 0.83) associated with warfarin versus DOACs. Similar associations were found for all other outcomes.

Conclusions

Among people with AF and a CHA□DS□-VASc score of 2, those receiving OACs had a lower risk of receiving a positive COVID-19 test and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk. There was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs in people with non-valvular AF regardless of CHA□DS□-VASc score.

Key points

What is already known on this topic

  • Current studies suggest that prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulant use, particularly low molecular weight heparin, lower the risk of pulmonary embolism and mortality during hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19.

  • Reduced vitamin K status has been reported to be correlated with severity of COVID-19. This could mean that warfarin, as a vitamin K antagonist, is associated with more severe COVID-19 disease than non-vitamin K anticoagulants.

What this study adds

  • In 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation, at the threshold of being treated with an OAC based on risk of stroke, we observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related deaths associated with routinely prescribed OACs, relative to non-use.

  • This might be explained by OACs preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes, or more cautious behaviours and environmental factors reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those taking OACs.

  • In 372,746 people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin compared with DOACs.

Related articles

Related articles are currently not available for this article.