Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study

Multifaceted Heparin: Diverse Applications beyond Anticoagulant Therapy

Heparin, a naturally occurring polysaccharide, has fascinated researchers and clinicians for nearly a century due to its versatile biological properties and has been used for various therapeutic purposes. Discovered in the early 20th century, heparin has been a key therapeutic anticoagulant ever since, and its use is now implemented as a life-saving pharmacological intervention in the management of thrombotic disorders and beyond. In addition to its known anticoagulant properties, heparin has been found to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anti-tumorigenic activities, which may lead to its widespread use in the future as an essential drug against infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and in various medical treatments. Furthermore, recent advancements in nanotechnology, including nano-drug delivery systems and nanomaterials, have significantly enhanced the intrinsic biofunctionalities of heparin. These breakthroughs have paved the way for innovative applications in medicine and therapy, expanding the potential of heparin research. Therefore, this review aims to provide a creation profile of heparin, space for its utilities in therapeutic complications, and future characteristics such as bioengineering and nanotechnology. It also discusses the challenges and opportunities in realizing the full potential of heparin to improve patient outcomes and elevate therapeutic interventions.

Evaluation of quantitative bias analysis in epidemiological research: A systematic review from 2010 to mid-2023

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to demonstrate the use of quantitative bias analysis (QBA), which reveals the effects of systematic error, including confounding, misclassification and selection bias, on study results in epidemiological studies published in the period from 2010 to mid-23.

METHOD

The articles identified through a keyword search using Pubmed and Scopus were included in the study. The articles obtained from this search were eliminated according to the exclusion criteria, and the articles in which QBA analysis was applied were included in the detailed evaluation.

RESULTS

It can be said that the application of QBA analysis has gradually increased over the 13-year period. Accordingly, the number of articles in which simple is used as a method in QBA analysis is 9 (9.89%), the number of articles in which the multidimensional approach is used is 10 (10.99%), the number of articles in which the probabilistic approach is used is 60 (65.93%) and the number of articles in which the method is not specified is 12 (13.19%). The number of articles with misclassification bias model is 44 (48.35%), the number of articles with uncontrolled confounder(s) bias model is 32 (35.16%), the number of articles with selection bias model is 7 (7.69%) and the number of articles using more than one bias model is 8 (8.79%). Of the 49 (53.85%) articles in which the bias parameter source was specified, 19 (38.78%) used internal validation, 26 (53.06%) used external validation and 4 (8.16%) used educated guess, data constraints and hypothetical data. Probabilistic approach was used as a bias method in 60 (65.93%) of the articles, and mostly beta (8 [13.33%)], normal (9 [15.00%]) and uniform (8 [13.33%]) distributions were selected.

CONCLUSION

The application of QBA is rare in the literature but is increasing over time. Future researchers should include detailed analyzes such as QBA analysis to obtain inferences with higher evidence value, taking into account systematic errors.

Anticoagulant use before COVID-19 diagnosis prevent COVID-19 associated acute venous thromboembolism or not: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coagulopathy and thromboembolic events are associated with poor outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. There is conflicting evidence on the effects of chronic anticoagulation on mortality and severity of COVID-19 disease.

AIM

To summarize the body of evidence on the effects of pre-hospital anticoagulation on outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A Literature search was performed on LitCovid PubMed, WHO, and Scopus databases from inception (December 2019) till June 2023 for original studies reporting an association between prior use of anticoagulants and patient outcomes in adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients taking anticoagulants. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 disease severity, in terms of intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation/intubation requirement in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, and mortality. The random effects models were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).

RESULTS

Forty-six observational studies met our inclusion criteria. The unadjusted analysis found no association between prior anticoagulation and thromboembolic event risk [n = 43851, 9 studies, odds ratio (OR)= 0.67 (0.22, 2.07); P = 0.49; I 2 = 95%]. The association between prior anticoagulation and disease severity was non-significant [n = 186782; 22 studies, OR = 1.08 (0.78, 1.49); P = 0.64; I 2 = 89%]. However, pre-hospital anticoagulation significantly increased all-cause mortality risk [n = 207292; 35 studies, OR = 1.72 (1.37, 2.17); P < 0.00001; I 2 = 93%]. Pooling adjusted estimates revealed a statistically non-significant association between pre-hospital anticoagulation and thromboembolic event risk [aOR = 0.87 (0.42, 1.80); P = 0.71], mortality [aOR = 0.94 (0.84, 1.05); P = 0.31], and disease severity [aOR = 0.96 (0.72, 1.26); P = 0.76].

CONCLUSION

Prehospital anticoagulation was not significantly associated with reduced risk of thromboembolic events, improved survival, and lower disease severity in COVID-19 patients.

How enoxaparin underdosing and sex contribute to achieving therapeutic anti-Xa levels

Introduction

Anti-Xa serves as a clinical surrogate for assessing the efficacy and bleeding risk in patients treated with enoxaparin for thromboembolic events. Evidence from the literature and empirical observations suggest that patients are underdosed in clinical practice to avoid bleeding complications. This study aimed to investigate such underdosing of enoxaparin and its potential impact on achieving therapeutic anti-Xa levels.

Methods

This multicentric, retrospective, observational study included patients with acute ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation. All patients received enoxaparin in the therapeutic setting with subsequent anti-Xa measurements. The one-sample, one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to identify a significant difference between the doses administered and the recommended daily dose. Logistic regression model analysis was performed to identify additional predictors affecting achievement of the therapeutic anti-Xa target range. Stepwise forward-backward selection with Akaike's information criterion as metric was applied to refine the logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 145 patients from the university hospitals of St. Pölten and Tulln in Lower Austria were included. The median daily enoxaparin dose administered was 1.23 mg/kg, resulting in an overall target range achievement rate of 66%. As compared to recommended therapeutic doses, significant underdosing of enoxaparin was evident in both participating centers (p < 0.001). The calculated threshold dose to achieve the therapeutic target range with a 90% probability was 1.5 mg/kg enoxaparin daily. Female sex was found to be a strong independent predictor of achieving a therapeutic target range (OR 9.44; 95% CI 3.40-30.05, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Despite the underdosing observed in both centers, therapeutic anti-Xa levels were achieved with lower than recommended doses of enoxaparin, and women required even lower doses than men. These findings warrant further confirmation by prospective studies.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Cannabis use associated with lower mortality among hospitalized Covid-19 patients using the national inpatient sample: an epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Prior reports indicate that modulation of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) may have a protective benefit for Covid-19 patients. However, associations between cannabis use (CU) or CU not in remission (active cannabis use (ACU)), and Covid-19-related outcomes among hospitalized patients is unknown.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective observational cohort analysis of adults (≥ 18 years-old) identified from 2020 National Inpatient Sample database, we utilize multivariable regression analyses and propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to analyze trends and outcomes among Covid-19-related hospitalizations with CU and without CU (N-CU) for primary outcome of interest: Covid-19-related mortality; and secondary outcomes: Covid-19-related hospitalization, mechanical ventilation (MV), and acute pulmonary embolism (PE) compared to all-cause admissions; for CU vs N-CU; and for ACU vs N-ACU.

RESULTS

There were 1,698,560 Covid-19-related hospitalizations which were associated with higher mortality (13.44% vs 2.53%, p ≤ 0.001) and worse secondary outcomes generally. Among all-cause hospitalizations, 1.56% of CU and 6.29% of N-CU were hospitalized with Covid-19 (p ≤ 0.001). ACU was associated with lower odds of MV, PE, and death among the Covid-19 population. On PSM, ACU(N(unweighted) = 2,382) was associated with 83.97% lower odds of death compared to others(N(unweighted) = 282,085) (2.77% vs 3.95%, respectively; aOR:0.16, [0.10-0.25], p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the ECS may represent a viable target for modulation of Covid-19. Additional studies are needed to further explore these findings.

Prophylactic Anticoagulation and Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with Clinically Stable COVID-19 at Admission: From the Practice-Based Observational Study

Objectives: The potential benefit of routine prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with clinically stable coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial. Method: The CLOT-COVID Study was a multicenter observational study enrolling 2894 consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The current study population consisted of 1738 hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 at admission not requiring oxygen administration, who were divided into 2 groups: patients with prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 326) and those without (n = 1412). Results: Patients with prophylactic anticoagulation had more severe status of the worst severity of COVID-19 during hospitalization compared with those without (mild: 38% versus 82%, moderate: 55% versus 17%, and severe or death at discharge: 6.4% versus 0.7%, P <0.001). During hospitalization, 8 patients (0.5%) developed thrombosis, and the incidences of thrombosis were numerically higher in patients with more severe status of worst severity of COVID-19 during hospitalization (mild: 0.2%, moderate: 1.2%, and severe or death at discharge: 3.2%). Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with clinically stable COVID-19 at admission, patients who did not worsen in COVID-19 severity after admission rarely developed thrombosis, although patients with worsening of COVID-19 severity after admission more often received prophylactic anticoagulation and might have a higher risk of thrombosis.

Exploring the therapeutic role of early heparin administration in ARDS management: a MIMIC-IV database analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe respiratory condition characterized by a high mortality rate, the management of which relies on supportive care and a profound understanding of its pathophysiology. Heparin, with its anticoagulant and potential anti-inflammatory properties, offers a new therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of ARDS.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the MIMIC-IV database for ARDS patients who received prophylactic heparin within the first 72 h of ICU admission. Employing propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis, we evaluated the impact of early heparin use on patient outcomes, focusing on mortality rates.

RESULTS

Patients who received prophylactic heparin had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate compared to those who did not (13.55% vs 17.93%, HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P = 0.012). This result remained significant after propensity score matching (12.75% vs 17.93%, HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.90, P = 0.010). Analysis using five different statistical models indicated that early use of heparin significantly reduced the in-hospital mortality rate, with HR = 0.669 (95% CI 0.487-0.919, P = 0.013) in the doubly robust model without balanced covariates; HR = 0.705 (95% CI 0.515-0.965, P = 0.029) with all covariates considered; HR = 0.660 (95% CI 0.491-0.888, P = 0.006) in the propensity score (IPW) model; HR = 0.650 (95% CI 0.470-0.900, P = 0.010) in the propensity score matching model; and HR = 0.706 (95% CI 0.536-0.930, P = 0.013) in the multivariate Cox regression model. Secondary outcomes indicated that heparin use was also associated with reduced mortality rates at 60 days, and 90 days.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights that early prophylactic administration of heparin may substantially lower mortality in ARDS patients. These findings underscore the potential of heparin as a key component in the management of ARDS, offering a new perspective and novel strategies for clinical treatment.

The impacts of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy during hospitalization on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk COVID-19 patients amid the omicron wave of the pandemic

Background

Although prophylactic anticoagulation therapy is suggested to be adopted in severe COVID-19 patients, its effects on the long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, namely the risk of major adverse CV events(MACEs) in high-risk CV patients amid the omicron wave of the pandemic, remain unknown.

Methods

We conducted this prospective cohort study of consecutive adults hospitalized COVID-19 between 19 April and 12 June 2022, COVID-19 patients with at least two CV risk factors or pre-existing CV diseases were enrolled. A propensity score matching(PSM) method was used to evaluated the effects of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in hospital on long-term MACEs, including CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris, coronary revascularization and arterial or venous thrombosis.

Results

Two cohorts (with or without anticoagulants during hospitalization) of each 230 patients with balanced baseline characteristics were formed using PSM. During the 15-month follow-up period, 13 patients with anticoagulants and 29 patients without anticoagulants developed MACEs. Overall, the anticoagulation group had a significantly lower risk of MACEs than the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.431; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.224-0.830, P = 0.010). Regarding specific constituents of MACEs, the differences were mainly reflected in arterial or venous thrombosis. The significantly lower HRs of overall MACEs were significantly observed in subgroup of age > 75 years, women, higher D dimer level, unvaccinated and non-nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescribed patients.

Conclusions

Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy during hospitalization was effective in reducing long-term MACEs among COVID-19 patients with CV risk factors or pre-existing CV diseases amid the omicron wave of the pandemic.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19 at a public-sector hospital over the first two waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Harare, Zimbabwe: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the clinical profile, complications, and outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19 at Parirenyatwa Hospital, Harare, across the first two waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and factors associated with mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study on all patients admitted to the COVID-19 unit. Data were extracted from medical records and negative binomial regression with robust standard errors was used to assess the association between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and mortality. Cox Regression was used for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Of 563 people admitted with COVID-19 between 2 July 2020 and 19 March 2021, 214 (38.0%) died, 340 were discharged and 9 transferred. The median age was 56 (IQR 44-68) years and 53.8% were male. Overall, 38.8% experienced a complication, the most common being acute kidney injury (17.9%) and hyperglycaemia (13.1%). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (41.3%) followed by diabetes (28.6%), HIV (12.1%), cardiovascular disease (10.9%) and chronic kidney disease (7.8%). Among participants who stayed in the ward for more than 1 night, mortality was higher in patients with comorbidity compared to those without any comorbidity (38.7% vs 25.5%, risk ratio (RR) = 1.52 (95% CI 1.11, 2.07), p = 0.008). After adjusting for oxygen saturation, comorbidities, sex and pregnancy, mortality was higher in the second wave than in the first (adjusted RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.51, p = 0.05). In the second wave 57/161 (35.4%) deaths were attributed to lack of resources, mainly human resources.

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate was high and clinical COVID-19 care needs to pay careful attention to patient monitoring for complications and management of comorbidities. This will require addressing the critical health workforce shortage issues. Prevention of COVID-19 including vaccination particularly among individuals with comorbidities remains a high priority.

The 2023 Belgian clinical guidance on anticoagulation management in hospitalized and ambulatory COVID-19 patients

COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for thrombotic complications. The trials investigating the optimal thromboprophylactic dose are performed in challenging times and seemingly produce conflicting evidence. The burdensome circumstances, divergent endpoints, and different analytical approaches hamper comparison and extrapolation of available evidence. Most importantly, clinicians should provide thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients while (re)assessing bleeding and thrombotic risk frequently. The COVID-19 Thromboprophylaxis Working Group of the BSTH updated its guidance document. It aims to summarize the available evidence critically and to guide clinicians in providing the best possible thromboprophylaxis.

Comparing Therapeutic versus Prophylactic Enoxaparin Therapy in Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with a hypercoagulopathy state; however, the efficacy of different anticoagulant regimens in preventing thrombotic events is not clear. We aimed to compare therapeutic versus prophylactic enoxaparin therapy in severe COVID-19 patients.

Methods

In this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, adult patients with severe COVID-19 presentations and an increased D-dimer level of more than 4 times the normal upper limit were randomly assigned to receive either prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. All patients were observed for at least 4 months regarding the overall survival as the primary outcome. Hospitalization duration, the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, the need for mechanical ventilation, and major adverse events (MAEs) were also analyzed as the secondary outcomes. Survival analysis was done via Kaplan-Meier curves and the Log-rank test. Cox regression was used, adjusting for baseline variables.

Results

Overall, 237 patients (152 men and 85 women) were randomized to either arm (121 to prophylactic and 116 to therapeutic groups). The mortality rate was 27 (22.3%) and 52 (44.8%) in prophylactic and therapeutic arms, respectively. Prophylactic enoxaparin was associated with better survival in the log-rank test (P < 0.001; HR, 0.42). Additionally, a significantly lower rate of ICU admission, a lower rate of MAEs, and shorter hospitalization were observed in the prophylactic arm (P < 0.001, P = 0.009, and P = 0.028, respectively).

Conclusion

The results of the current study were in favor of anticoagulant treatment with prophylactic doses of enoxaparin. Still, due to the limitations of this paper, we suggest that these findings be treated cautiously.

Anticoagulant treatment and COVID-19 mortality among older adults living in nursing homes in Sweden

Background

Anticoagulants (AC) were introduced in March 2020 as standard of care in nursing home (NH) residents affected with COVID-19 in the Stockholm region, Sweden. ACs are proven to reduce the risk of complications and mortality from COVID-19 among patients of other ages and settings, but there is limited scientific evidence underpinning this practice in the NH setting.

Methods

This matched cohort study included 182 NH residents in the Stockholm Region diagnosed with COVID-19 in March-May 2020. The main exposure was any AC treatment. Exposed (n = 91), 49% prevalent (pre-COVID-19 diagnosis) AC and 51% incident AC were compared with unexposed controls (n = 91). The outcome was 28-days all-cause mortality after COVID-19 infection. The mortality odds ratios (OR) were assessed using logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, multimorbidity, and mobility, also stratified by incident or prevalent AC-type, age group, and sex.

Results

Of the 182 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (median age 88 years, 68% women), 39% died within 28 days after diagnosis. Use of either incident or prevalent AC was associated with a reduced, adjusted 28-day mortality (OR[95% CI]: 0.31[0.16-0.62]). In stratified analyses, the association was significant in both age groups: 70-89 (OR: 0.37 [0.15-0.89]) and 90-99 years of age (OR: 0.22 [0.07-0.65]. In sex-stratified analysis, the AC-lowering effect was significant in women only (OR: 0.28[0.11-0.67]). In the analyses stratified by AC type, the mortality-lowering effect was observed for both prevalent AC (OR: 0.35[0.12-0.99]) and incident AC (OR: 0.29[0.11-0.76]).

Conclusions

Both prevalent and incident use of ACs in prophylactic dosing was associated with reduced 28-day mortality among older individuals with COVID-19 in a NH setting. The effect was seen across age-strata and in women. The findings present new insight in best practice for individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the NH setting.

Leveraging the Million Veteran Program Infrastructure and Data for a Rapid Research Response to COVID-19

Background

The Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development (ORD) played a key role in the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ORD effectively leveraged existing resources to answer questions related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Observations

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, the Million Veteran Program (MVP), one of the largest genomic cohorts in the world, extended the centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure to develop a COVID-19 research volunteer registry to assist enrollment in the vaccine and treatment trials in which the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) participated. In addition, the MVP allowed for new data collection and a large genomic cohort to understand host contributions to COVID-19. This article describes ways the MVP contributed to the VA's rapid research response to COVID-19. Several host genetic factors believed to play a role in the development and severity of COVID-19 were identified. Furthermore, existing MVP partnerships with other federal agencies, particularly with the Department of Energy, were leveraged to improve understanding and management of COVID-19.

Conclusions

A previously established enterprise approach and research infrastructure were essential to the VA's successful and timely COVID-19 research response. This infrastructure not only supported rapid recruitment in vaccine and treatment trials, but also leveraged the unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations. Extending the models that VA research applied to the federal government at large and establishing centralized resources for shared or federated data analyses across federal agencies will better equip the nation to respond to future public health crises.

A Delphi consensus on the management of anticoagulation in the COVID-19 pandemic: the MONACO study

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, guideline documents on the management of anticoagulation were rapidly published. However, these documents did not follow a structured methodology, and significant differences existed between the guidelines. The aim of this expert consensus was to provide recommendations on the clinical management of oral anticoagulation in patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A two-round Delphi study was conducted using an online survey. In the first round, panellists expressed their level of agreement with the items on a 9-point Likert scale. Items were selected if they received approval from ≥66.6% of panellists and if they were agreed by the scientific committee. In the second round, panellists revaluated those items that did not meet consensus in the first round.

Results

A total of 147 panellists completed the first round, and 144 of them completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 161 items included in five dimensions. These dimensions addressed: (I) management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without mechanical valves or moderate/severe mitral stenosis during COVID-19 infection; (II) thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; (III) management of anticoagulation at hospital discharge/after COVID-19; (IV) anticoagulation monitoring in the COVID-19 pandemic setting; and (V) role of telemedicine in the management and follow-up of patients with AF in the COVID-19 pandemic setting.

Conclusions

These areas of collective agreement could specially guide clinicians in making decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 during hospitalisation and at discharge, where results from clinical trials are still limited and, in some cases, conflicting.

Management of patients on antithrombotic therapy with severe infections: a joint clinical consensus statement of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, the ESC Working Group on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology, and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Patients with severe infections and a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy, i.e. antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant drugs, or their combinations, require integrated clinical counselling among coagulation, infectious disease, and cardiology specialists, due to sepsis-induced coagulopathy that frequently occurs. Bacterial and viral pathogens constitute an increasing threat to global public health, especially for patients with ongoing antithrombotic treatment who have a high risk of thrombotic recurrences and high susceptibility to severe infections with increased morbidity and mortality. Similarly, sepsis survivors are at increased risk for major vascular events. Coagulopathy, which often complicates severe infections, is associated with a high mortality and obligates clinicians to adjust antithrombotic drug type and dosing to avoid bleeding while preventing thrombotic complications. This clinical consensus statement reviews the best available evidence to provide expert opinion and statements on the management of patients hospitalized for severe bacterial or viral infections with a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy (single or combined), in whom sepsis-induced coagulopathy is often observed. Balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients and preventing infections with vaccines, if available, are crucial to prevent events or improve outcomes and prognosis.

Role of Endothelium in Cardiovascular Sequelae of Long COVID

The global action against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, shed light on endothelial dysfunction. Although SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects the pulmonary system, multiple studies have documented pan-vascular involvement in COVID-19. The virus is able to penetrate the endothelial barrier, damaging it directly or indirectly and causing endotheliitis and multi-organ injury. Several mechanisms cooperate to development of endothelial dysfunction, including endothelial cell injury and pyroptosis, hyperinflammation and cytokine storm syndrome, oxidative stress and reduced nitric oxide bioavailability, glycocalyx disruption, hypercoagulability, and thrombosis. After acute-phase infection, some patients reported signs and symptoms of a systemic disorder known as long COVID, in which a broad range of cardiovascular (CV) disorders emerged. To date, the exact pathophysiology of long COVID remains unclear: in addition to the persistence of acute-phase infection mechanisms, specific pathways of CV damage have been postulated, such as persistent viral reservoirs in the heart or an autoimmune response to cardiac antigens through molecular mimicry. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the main molecular patterns of enduring endothelial activation following SARS-CoV-2 infection and to offer the latest summary of CV complications in long COVID.

Role of Nebulized Heparin in Clinical Outcome of COVID-19 Patients with Respiratory Symptoms: A Systematic Review

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is an extremely contagious illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). There are currently no particular treatments, however, nebulized heparin has been offered as a viable therapy. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search terms included "nebulized heparin," "COVID-19," and "SARS-CoV-2." Studies that evaluated the use of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms were included. The rest of the studies along with those that were not published in English were excluded. The systematic review was registered under PROSPERO-CRD42023413927.

Observations

Five studies have been included in this systematic review. Case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled trial (RCT) comprised the studies. The patient sample sizes ranged from 2 to 98. The studies assessed the efficacy of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with variable disease severity. The evaluated outcomes included mortality, hospital stay duration, oxygen requirements, and laboratory parameters.

Conclusion

Based on the clinical studies included in this systematic review, nebulized heparin may be useful in the management of COVID-19. Oxygen saturation was greater, inflammatory indicators were lower, and hospital stays were shorter in these patients. However, the studies had limitations, including inconsistent sample sizes, varying dosages of nebulized heparin, and no control groups. Nebulized heparin in patients with COVID-19 needs to be studied further to determine its safety and effectiveness.

How to cite this article

Gupta B, Ahluwalia P, Gupta N, Gupta A. Role of Nebulized Heparin in Clinical Outcome of COVID-19 Patients with Respiratory Symptoms: A Systematic Review. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(8):572-579.

Adoption of a National Prophylactic Anticoagulation Guideline for Hospitalized Pregnant Women With COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Both COVID-19 and pregnancy are associated with hypercoagulability. Due to the increased risk for thrombosis, the United States National Institute of Health's recommendation for prophylactic anticoagulant use for pregnant patients has expanded from patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 manifestation to all patients hospitalized for the manifestation of COVID-19 (no guideline: before December 26, 2020; first update: December 27, 2022; second update: February 24, 2022-present). However, no study has evaluated this recommendation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize prophylactic anticoagulant use among hospitalized pregnant people with COVID-19 from March 20, 2020, to October 19, 2022.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study in large US health care systems across 7 states. The cohort of interest was pregnant patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, without previous coagulopathy or contraindication to anticoagulants (n=2767). The treatment group consisted of patients prescribed prophylactic dose anticoagulation between 2 days before and 14 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=191). The control group was patients with no anticoagulant exposure between 14 days before and 60 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=2534). We ascertained the use of prophylactic anticoagulants with attention to the updates in guidelines and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We propensity score matched the treatment and control group 1:1 on the most important features contributing to the prophylactic anticoagulant administration status classification. Outcome measures included coagulopathy, bleeding, COVID-19-related complications, and maternal-fetal health outcomes. Additionally, the inpatient anticoagulant administration rate was validated in a nationwide population from Truveta, a collective of 700 hospitals across the United States.

RESULTS

The overall administration rate of prophylactic anticoagulants was 7% (191/2725). It was lowest after the second guideline update (no guideline: 27/262, 10%; first update: 145/1663, 8.72%; second update: 19/811, 2.3%; P<.001) and during the omicron-dominant period (Wild type: 45/549, 8.2%; Alpha: 18/129, 14%; Delta: 81/507, 16%; and Omicron: 47/1551, 3%; P<.001). Models developed on retrospective data showed that the variable most associated with the administration of inpatient prophylactic anticoagulant was comorbidities prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients who were administered prophylactic anticoagulant were also more likely to receive supplementary oxygen (57/191, 30% vs 9/188, 5%; P<.001). There was no statistical difference in a new diagnosis of coagulopathy, bleeding, or maternal-fetal health outcomes between those who received treatment and the matched control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Most hospitalized pregnant patients with COVID-19 did not receive prophylactic anticoagulants across health care systems as recommended by guidelines. Guideline-recommended treatment was administered more frequently to patients with greater COVID-19 illness severity. Given the low rate of administration and differences between treated and untreated cohorts, efficacy could not be assessed.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection).

METHODS

PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49.

RESULTS

The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

VA Research and Operations Uniting to Combat COVID-19 Inequities

As novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) began to spread across the United States in early 2020, health care systems faced extreme demands on resources. As the country's largest single-payer health care system, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was uniquely positioned to study how the virus impacted different communities and work to improve care provided to all. Early on, a literature review of prior epidemics revealed that occupational exposures and an inability to socially distance could impact some groups more than others. The VA's Office of Health Equity leveraged a general sense of community to create a collaborative research space and a dedicated analytic space to inform pandemic operations. VA researchers and operations staff were able to quickly share information and respond to updates to produce accurate and reliable publications for medical professionals and the general public. Partnerships with VA Medical Centers and Veteran Service Organizations helped to increase communication across the nation and determine the most critical needs. Although COVID-19 was dynamic in nature, VA's intentional examination of social and structural factors was crucial in informing a more equitable approach. Moving forward, these inequities must be intentionally addressed in future pandemic responses.

Interrelationship between COVID-19 and Coagulopathy: Pathophysiological and Clinical Evidence

Since the first description of COVID-19 infection, among clinical manifestations of the disease, including fever, dyspnea, cough, and fatigue, it was observed a high incidence of thromboembolic events potentially evolving towards acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19-associated-coagulopathy (CAC). The hypercoagulation state is based on an interaction between thrombosis and inflammation. The so-called CAC represents a key aspect in the genesis of organ damage from SARS-CoV-2. The prothrombotic status of COVID-19 can be explained by the increase in coagulation levels of D-dimer, lymphocytes, fibrinogen, interleukin 6 (IL-6), and prothrombin time. Several mechanisms have been hypothesized to explain this hypercoagulable process such as inflammatory cytokine storm, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis for a long time. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the pathogenic mechanisms of coagulopathy that may characterize COVID-19 infection and inform on new areas of research. New vascular therapeutic strategies are also reviewed.

Effectiveness of early heparin therapy on outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy

Background: This study aimed to investigate whether early unfractionated heparin (UFH) administration provides a survival advantage for patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC). Methods: Patients hospitalized with sepsis-induced coagulopathy from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database were identified. Patients were divided into two groups, who received unfractionated heparin (UFH) subcutaneously within 24 h after intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the control group, who received not. The primary endpoint was intensive care unit mortality, the secondary outcomes were 7, 14, and 28-day and hospital mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) the marginal structural Cox model (MSCM) and E-value analysis were used to account for baseline differences, time-varying and unmeasured confounding factors. Results: A total of 3,377 patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy were enrolled in the study, of which 815 in unfractionated heparin group and 2,562 in control group. There was significant effect on primary and secondary outcomes with unfractionated heparin after propensity score matching (intensive care unit mortality, hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.92; 7-day, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99; 14-day, HR 0.68.95% CI 0.50-0.92; 28-day, HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96; hospital mortality, HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96), marginal structural Cox model manifested unfractionated heparin associated with decreased intensive care unit mortality in all populations (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84), and stratification with the marginal structural Cox model indicated analysis further indicated the survival advantage only among patients with an sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.81). Further analysis showed that treatment with 6,250-13750 IU/day of unfractionated heparin associated with a decreased risk of intensive care unit mortality. Similar results were replicated in subgroup analysis with propensity score matching only for patients with an sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 (intensive care unit mortality, HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76). Conclusion: This study found early unfractionated heparin therapy to patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Subgroup analysis further demonstrates heparin therapy decreased intensive care unit mortality primarily in patients only with SIC score of 4.

Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group.

RESULTS

Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).

Antithrombotic therapy in the management of hospitalised patients with COVID-19

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at a significantly higher risk of having thromboembolic events while in hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. Based on early data from observational studies, multiple high quality randomised controlled trials have been conducted worldwide to evaluate optimal thromboprophylaxis regimens to reduce thromboembolism and other COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis has published evidence-based guideline recommendations using established methodology for the management of antithrombotic therapy of COVID-19 patients, both in-hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. A good clinical practice statement supplemented these guidelines based on topics for which there was no or limited high-quality evidence. This review summarises the main recommendations of these documents to serve as a quick access tool for hospital doctors to use in their everyday practice when treating COVID-19 patients.

Treatment options for patients with severe COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the world for over 3 years. Treatment options have improved substantially during this period, including antiviral drugs, antibody drugs, immune-based agents, and vaccination. While these improvements have reduced mortality rates in patients with COVID-19, some patients still develop severe illness. In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of treatments for patients with severe COVID-19 from study reports and clinical experience. We discussed the treatments from two perspectives: respiratory care and drug treatments. In the respiratory care section, we discussed the usefulness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy and non-invasive ventilation as an alternative to invasive ventilation. In the drug treatments section, we focused on three classes for severe COVID-19 treatment: antiviral drugs, immune-based agents, and anticoagulation therapy. We did not discuss antibody drugs and vaccination, as they are not used for severe COVID-19 treatment.

Thrombosis and Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients with COVID-19 Including Japanese Perspective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major health problem worldwide since 2020. Although the main pathophysiology of COVID-19 is a respiratory infectious disease, it could also cause cardiovascular complications, including thrombosis. Thus, anticoagulation therapy has been thought to help prevent thrombosis, leading to improved survival. However, to date, several aspects of the optimal anticoagulation strategies for COVID-19 remain unclear. Considering the status of COVID-19-related thrombosis and some domestic issues in Japan, the optimal anticoagulation strategies for COVID-19 might have to be based on Japanese domestic clinical data considering racial difference. Racial disparities in terms of thromboembolic risk have been well known in the pre-COVID-19 era, and the risk of COVID-19-associated thrombosis depending on race could be an important issue. Considering a potential higher risk of bleeding with anticoagulation therapy in the Asian population, it might be important to maintain a good balance between the risks of thrombosis and bleeding. Latest evidences of COVID-19-related thrombosis and anticoagulation strategies, including some domestic issues in Japan, showed a different status of COVID-19-related thrombosis in Japan from that in Western countries, suggesting the potential benefit of different anticoagulation strategies, specifically for the Japanese population. Although these insights could be useful for the consideration of anticoagulation strategies for the Japanese population, the final decision should be based on balancing the benefits and risks of anticoagulation therapy in each patient.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Evidence

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk of thrombosis. Literature that compares the effectiveness of enoxaparin to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in COVID-19 patients is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enoxaparin compared with UFH when used at their standard/intermediate dosing in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at a large COVID-19 center located in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Confirmed COVID-19 cases (≥18 years old) admitted between January and December 2020 were randomly screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, on chronic anticoagulation, had active bleeding, a platelet count <25 × 109/L, or an incomplete electronic file. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any thrombotic event (pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, stroke, or myocardial infarction) or mortality. Secondary endpoints were major or minor bleeding. We applied inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis to analyze the primary endpoint. Logistic regression was used for the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 980 patients were included (enoxaparin, n = 470 and UFH, n = 510) with a mean age (±SD) of 47.7 (± 12.3) for the enoxaparin arm and 52 (±13.9) for the UFH arm. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.46 (95%CI: 0.22 to 0.96, P = 0.039) in favor of the enoxaparin arm. There was no statistically significant difference in major or minor bleeding rates between the two arms.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

When compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with a significant reduction in thrombotic events or mortality among COVID-19 patients. The results need confirmation from randomized controlled trials.

Long-term outcome of thyroid abnormalities in patients with severe Covid-19

OBJECTIVE

We have previously observed thyroid dysfunction, i.e. atypical thyroiditis (painless thyrotoxicosis associated with non-thyroidal illness syndrome), in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (Covid-19). This study aimed to analyse the evolution of thyroid dysfunction over time.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-three consecutive patients hospitalised for severe Covid-19 without known thyroid history were studied at hospital admission (baseline). Survivors were offered 12-month longitudinal follow-up including assessment of thyroid function, autoantibodies and ultrasound scan (US). Patients showing US focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis (focal hypoechogenicity) also underwent thyroid 99mTc or 123I uptake scan.

RESULTS

At baseline, after excluding from TSH analysis, 63 out of 183 (34%) Covid-19 patients commenced on steroids before hospitalisation, and 12 (10%) showed atypical thyroiditis. Follow-up of 75 patients showed normalisation of thyroid function and inflammatory markers and no increased prevalence of detectable thyroid autoantibodies. Baseline US (available in 65 patients) showed focal hypoechogenicity in 28% of patients, of whom 82% had reduced thyroid 99mTc/123I uptake. The presence of focal hypoechogenicity was associated with baseline low TSH (P = 0.034), high free-thyroxine (FT4) (P = 0.018) and high interleukin-6 (IL6) (P = 0.016). Focal hypoechogenicity persisted after 6 and 12 months in 87% and 50% patients, respectively, but reduced in size. After 9 months, thyroid 99mTc/123I uptake partially recovered from baseline (+28%) but was still reduced in 67% patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe Covid-19 induces mild transient thyroid dysfunction correlating with disease severity. Focal hypoechogenicity, associated with baseline high FT4, IL6 and low TSH, does not seem to be related to thyroid autoimmunity and may persist after 1 year although decreasing in size. Long-term consequences seem unlikely.

High-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation for COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Review of Benefits and Risks

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on a global scale, causing significant morbidity and mortality. The virus affects multiple organ systems, including the respiratory, cardiovascular, and coagulation systems, leading to severe pneumonia in some patients. Moreover, COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia have a high incidence of thrombotic events, which can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Given the potential benefits of anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients with thrombotic complications, recent studies have proposed high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) therapy as a potential treatment option. In fact, some studies have suggested that HD-PA therapy may be more effective in reducing thrombotic events and mortality rates than other treatment options. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the benefits and risks of HD-PA therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia patients. By synthesizing and analyzing the latest available research, we highlight patient selection criteria and discuss the optimal dosage, duration, and timing of therapy. Additionally, we review the potential risks associated with HD-PA therapy and provide recommendations for clinical practice. Ultimately, this review provides valuable insights into the use of HD-PA therapy in COVID-19 pneumonia patients and paves the way for further research in this critical area. By exploring the benefits and risks of this treatment option, we hope to provide healthcare professionals with the information they need to make informed decisions about the best course of treatment for their patients.

Pulse Methylprednisolone Versus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Although pulse (high-dose) methylprednisolone therapy can hypothetically control immune system flare-ups effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone compared with dexamethasone in COVID-19 remains inconclusive.

Use of Structured Template and Reporting Tool for Real-World Evidence for Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Reporting of Real-World Evidence Studies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are increasingly being used to support healthcare decisions. Various frameworks, tools, and checklists exist for ensuring quality of real-world data, designing robust studies, and assessing potential for bias. In January 2021, Structured Template and Reporting Tool for RWE (STaRT-RWE) was released to further reduce ambiguity, assumptions, and misinterpretation while planning, implementing, and reporting RWE studies of the safety and effectiveness of treatments. The objective of this study was to identify gaps in the reporting quality of published RWE studies by using this template for critical appraisal.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted a keyword search on PubMed for free-full-text research articles using real-world data, RWE design, and safety with or without effectiveness outcomes of a medicinal product or intervention in humans of any age or gender, published in English between January 13, 2021, and January 13, 2022. Assessment of risk of bias was done using Assessment of Real-World Observational Studies critical appraisal tool. Deficiencies in methods and findings as per STaRT-RWE template were reported as frequencies.

RESULTS

A total of 54 of 2374 retrieved studies were included in the review. Based on the STaRT-RWE template, the studies inadequately reported empirically defined covariates, power and sample size calculation, attrition, sensitivity analyses, index date (day 0) defining criterion, predefined covariates, outcome, metadata about data source and software, objective, inclusion and exclusion criteria, analysis specifications, and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of STaRT-RWE template along with its tables, design diagram, and library of published studies has a potential of improving robustness of RWE studies.

Clinical and pharmacological factors associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 in a high complexity hospital in Manaus: A retrospective study

COVID-19 is a contagious infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, responsible for more than 5 million deaths worldwide, and has been a significant challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Characterized by multiple manifestations, the most common symptoms are fever, cough, anosmia, ageusia, and myalgia. However, several organs can be affected in more severe cases, causing encephalitis, myocarditis, respiratory distress, hypercoagulable state, pulmonary embolism, and stroke. Despite efforts to identify appropriate clinical protocols for its management, there are still no fully effective therapies to prevent patient death. The objective of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and pharmacotherapeutic management characteristics employed in patients hospitalized for diagnosis of COVID-19, in addition to identifying predictive factors for mortality. This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study carried out in a reference hospital belonging to the Brazilian public health system, in Manaus, from March 2020 to July 2021. Data were obtained from analyzing medical records, physical and electronic forms, medical prescriptions, and antimicrobial use authorization forms. During the study period, 530 patients were included, 51.70% male, with a mean age of 58.74 ± 15.91 years. The overall mortality rate was 23.58%. The variables age, number of comorbidities, admission to the ICU, length of stay, oxygen saturation, serum aspartate transaminase, and use of mechanical ventilation showed a positive correlation with the mortality rate. Regarding pharmacological management, 88.49% of patients used corticosteroids, 86.79% used antimicrobials, 94.15% used anticoagulant therapy, and 3.77% used immunotherapy. Interestingly, two specific classes of antibiotics showed a positive correlation with the mortality rate: penicillins and glycopeptides. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, age, number of comorbidities, need for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and penicillin or glycopeptide antibiotics use were associated with mortality (AUC = 0.958).

Enoxaparin Posology According to Prothrombotic Status and Bleeding Risk in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

Some patients with COVID-19 have complex hypercoagulable abnormalities that are related to mortality. The optimal dosage of low molecular weight heparin in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is still not clear. Our objective is to evaluate the effects of adapting the dosage of low molecular weight heparin to thrombotic and bleeding risk scales in this setting. We performed a cohort, retrospective, observational, and analytical study at the Hospital Universitario of Jerez de la Frontera, with patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia from 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021. They were classified according to whether they received prophylactic, intermediate, or therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. The primary endpoint was intrahospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were the need for invasive ventilation, thromboembolic events, bleeding, and the usefulness of thrombotic and bleeding scales. After binary logistic regression analysis, considering confounding variables, it was found that the use of enoxaparin at therapeutic doses was associated with lower mortality during admission compared to prophylactic and intermediate doses (RR 0.173; 95% CI, 0.038-0.8; p = 0.025). IMPROVE bleeding risk score correlated with a higher risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.263; 95% CI, 1.105-1.573; p = 0.037). In adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia presenting elevated D-dimer and severe proinflammatory state, therapeutic doses of enoxaparin can be considered, especially if bleeding risk is low according to the IMPROVE bleeding risk score.

Monotherapy versus polytherapy of enoxaparin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives

The current study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Enoxaparin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) used as monothrapy or polytherapy versus standard care alone in Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients.

Methods

The current study included two hundred patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection. Patients admitted to hospital were randomly allocated into four groups: group I: received standard COVID-19 therapy, group II: received Enoxaparin 40mg/day subcutaneously (SC) plus standard therapy, group III: received 400 mg/day HCQ plus standard therapy & group IV: received a combination of 400 mg/day HCQ and Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy. The disease progression was evaluated by duration to a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), length of hospital or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and mortality rate. The safety of treatments was evaluated by measuring adverse effects.

Results

The length of hospital stay, ICU admission and mortality were significantly decreased in Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy group versus other groups.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that Enoxaparin was safe, effective, and well tolerated and has a role in decreasing the progression of the disease and its complications while HCQ did not discover any evidence of extra therapeutic benefits.

Low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19: benefits and concerns

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on the public health worldwide and it scarred the medical, economical, and social determinants of health. Even after the significant vaccination advances, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest in severe presentations with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ complications leading to notable morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and researchers are on continuous pursuit of investigating different approaches in the attempt to prevent the infection and minimize its severity. Although the COVID-19's pathophysiology remains relatively unclear, it is well established now that coagulopathy, systemic thrombotic propensity, and a robust immunoinflammatory response are some of the most important determinants of its morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, research efforts have focused on addressing the inflammatory and hematological cascades using available agents to avoid thromboembolic events. Several studies and investigators have emphasized the importance of Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), namely, Lovenox, in addressing these sequelae of the COVID-19 disease, either prophylactically or therapeutically. This review explores the benefits and concerns of employing LMWH, a widely used anticoagulant, in COVID-19 disease. It delves into Enoxaparin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology, mechanism of action, and clinical uses. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence that highlight the role of enoxaparin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

Coagulopathy, in the form of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, is one of the most severe sequelae of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been associated with poorer outcomes. However, the role of therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) or prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) in COVID-19 patients has not been definitely established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather all the available real-world data in the field and to provide a reliable effect size of the effect on mortality of tAC compared to pAC in COVID-19 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Real-world studies (RWS) were identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 31st October, 2021. Randomized controlled trials were excluded. Mortality and bleedings were considered as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

10 RWS and 5541 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, tAC was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71). There was asymmetry at the funnel plot suggesting publication bias, that was not confirmed at the Egger test (P=0.07). For the secondary endpoint, there was a non-statistically significant tendency for more bleedings in patients treated with tAC compared to pAC (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 0.81-3.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis, based on RWS and adjusted estimates of risk, suggests a survival benefit of tAC over pAC in COVID-19 patients in the real world.

Prevalence of NSAID use among people with COVID-19 and the association with COVID-19-related outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Recent reports of potential harmful effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have raised great concern.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MedRxiv databases to examine the prevalence of NSAID use and associated COVID-19 risk, outcomes and safety.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with a total of 101 215 COVID-19 patients were included. Prevalence of NSAID use among COVID-19 patients was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-23%, no. of studies [n] = 22) and NSAID use prior to admission or diagnosis of COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.06, I2  = 34%, n = 3), hospitalization (aOR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.76-1.48, I2  = 81%, n = 5), mechanical ventilation (aOR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06, I2  = 38%, n = 4) or length of hospital stay. Moreover, prior use of NSAIDs was associated with a decreased risk of severe COVID-19 (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, I2  = 0%, n = 7) and death (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89, I2  = 85%, n = 10). Prior NSAID administration might also be associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.04-5.2, I2  = 0%, n = 2), but not myocardial infarction (aOR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.25-8.92, I2  = 0, n = 2) and composite thrombotic events (aOR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.66-3.69, I2  = 52%, n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, NSAID use prior to admission or diagnosis of COVID-19 was not linked with increased odds or exacerbation of COVID-19. NSAIDs might provide a survival benefit, although they might potentially increase the risk of stroke. Controlled trials are still required to further assess the clinical benefit and safety (e.g., stroke and acute renal failure) of NSAIDs in treating patients with COVID-19.

Effect of tocilizumab treatment in mildly-obese patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a case series

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an increasingly widespread international medical problem. Several randomized trials and observational studies in patients with COVID-19 have been performed. However, the standard treatment strategy has not yet been established. The purpose of this study is to report effect of tocilizumab treatment combined with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and heparin on obese Japanese patients with COVID-19. Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor. Obesity, characterized by systemic enlarged adipocytes, promotes proinflammatory cytokine expression in adipose tissue. More specifically, obesity induces detrimental adipocytokine production including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and IL-6. In addition, its production in the adipose tissue is associated with body mass index (BMI) and adipocyte size. IL-6 can promote inflammation not only in the adipose tissues but also in endothelial cells and triggers systemic inflammation.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted. The study sample consisted of 96 patients between August 2020 and January 2021 at Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital.

Results

Overall, 56.3% (54 of 96) were administered with remdesivir, 54.2% (52 of 96) with dexamethasone, 19.8% (19 of 96) with anticoagulant therapy with heparin. Of the patients, nine were administered tocilizumab with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and heparin. The current study indicated that single-dose treatment of tocilizumab in combination with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and heparin is beneficial for obese Japanese patients with COVID-19.

Conclusions

We believe that the severity of obesity is related to the anti-IL-6 treatment sensitivity in patients with COVID-19.

Challenges in evaluating treatments for COVID-19: The case of in-hospital anticoagulant use and the risk of adverse outcomes

Anticoagulants are a potential treatment for the thrombotic complications resulting from COVID-19. We aimed to determine the association between anticoagulant use and adverse outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We used data from the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project in South Korea from January to June 2020. We defined exposure using an intention-to-treat approach, with person-time classified as use or non-use of anticoagulants at cohort entry, and a time-varying approach. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality; the secondary outcome was a composite including respiratory outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and intensive care unit admission. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of the outcomes comparing use versus non-use of anticoagulants. Our cohort included 2,677 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, of whom 24 received anticoagulants at cohort entry. Users were older and had more comorbidities. The crude incidence rate (per 1,000 person-days) of mortality was 5.83 (95% CI: 2.80, 10.72) among anticoagulant users and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.59) for non-users. Crude rates of the composite outcome were 3.20 (95% CI: 1.04, 7.47) and 1.80 (95% CI: 1.54, 2.08), respectively. Adjusted HRs for mortality (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.48, 2.64) and the composite outcome (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.28, 2.18) were inconclusive. Although our study was not able to draw conclusions on anticoagulant effectiveness for COVID-19 outcomes, these results can contribute to future knowledge syntheses of this important question. Our study demonstrated that the dynamic pandemic environment may have important implications for observational studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients with Severe COVID-19 and the Association between the Dose of Anticoagulants and Outcomes

Introduction

COVID-19 is characterized by a procoagulant state that increases the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis. The dose of anticoagulants in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia without suspected or confirmed thrombosis has been debated.

Aim of the study

We evaluated the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill COVID-19 patients and assessed the association between the dose of anticoagulants and outcomes.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort included patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU between March and July 2020. Patients with clinically suspected and confirmed VTE were compared to those not diagnosed to have VTE.

Results

The study enrolled 310 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: age 60.0±15.1 years, 67.1% required mechanical ventilation and 44.7% vasopressors. Most (97.1%) patients received anticoagulants during ICU stay: prophylactic unfractionated heparin (N=106), standard-dose enoxaparin (N=104) and intermediate-dose enoxaparin (N=57). Limb Doppler ultrasound was performed for 49 (15.8%) patients and chest computed tomographic angiography for 62 (20%). VTE was diagnosed in 41 (13.2%) patients; 20 patients had deep vein thrombosis and 23 had acute pulmonary embolism. Patients with VTE had significantly higher D-dimer on ICU admission. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, intermediate-dose enoxaparin versus standard-dose unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin was associated with lower VTE risk (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.74) and lower risk of the composite outcome of VTE or hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.78; p=0.006). Major bleeding was not different between the intermediate- and prophylactic-dose heparin groups.

Conclusions

In our study, clinically suspected and confirmed VTE was diagnosed in 13.2% of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Intermediate-dose enoxaparin versus standard-dose unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin was associated with decreased risk of VTE or hospital mortality.

Clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin in patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), increases thrombotic risk in hospitalised patients. The rate of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. The role of heparin, frequently used in the management of hospitalised patients, also needs to be clarified. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin given at prophylactic or therapeutic dose in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and evaluated its role in the development of disease in terms of mortality, and incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included 141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to five different wards (one intensive care unit, 2 sub-intensive care units, and 2 general infectious disease units) of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Naples, Italy, between March and May 2020.

RESULTS

Over a median time of 17 days (IQR 11-25), enoxaparin was given to 90/141 patients (63.8%) of whom 65 took a prophylactic and 25 a therapeutic dose. We documented 14 episodes of thrombosis (9.9%); almost all were cases of pulmonary embolism. No significant difference in terms of thromboembolic prevention was found between those patients not receiving anticoagulants and those on prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. Five episodes of major bleeding occurred (3.5%); therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was associated with a greater bleeding risk than prophylactic dose (p=0.002). During follow-up, 31 patients (22%) died; these were mostly elderly men with two or more comorbidities at admission. No advantages of enoxaparin, either as prophylaxis or at high doses, in terms of mortality were observed. At multivariate analysis, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high total bilirubin and fasting hyperglycemia were independently associated with a higher mortality.

DISCUSSION

We did not observe advantages in terms of either thromboembolic prevention or mortality of enoxaparin, which however was more frequently used in patients with more severe disease. Prophylactic enoxaparin was not seen to be associated with bleeding risk.

Anti-coagulation therapy on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A once often neglected virus from common practice has been demanding the attention of all researchers for the past decade ever since it started to infect humans from its usual wild habitats. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in humans is now found to have frequent manifestations of thromboembolic events as a result of a hyper-coagulable state. Anti-coagulants (ACs) have been suggested to overcome such a state, and studies have been conducted to assess its role. The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine the existence of such a role and its nature, either beneficial or not, and to assess the strength of this role if it exists. We have conducted an online search in the databases such as PubMed, Google scholar, Lancet, Elsevier, JAMA, Medline, and so on and concluded ten studies among 2562 that had results which were more precise and of better quality. The results of six studies favored the use of ACs, whereas one study showed no beneficial response and four studies discussed the effects of therapeutic versus prophylactic anti-coagulation. The result of our statistical analysis was that the odds ratio for mortality reduction of ACs in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is 0.6757 (95% CI; 0.5148 to 0.961) and that for benefits of therapeutic ACs versus prophylactic ACs in COVID-19 patients is 0.809 (95% CI; 0.6137 to 1.1917). AC was associated with lower mortality and intubation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Compared with therapeutic AC, prophylactic AC was associated with lower mortality, although not statistically significant, and lower bleeding risks.

Comparison between the first and second COVID-19 waves in Internal Medicine wards in Milan, Italy: a retrospective observational study

COVID-19 spread in two pandemic waves in Italy between 2020 and 2021. The aim of this study is to compare the first with the second COVID-19 wave, analyzing modifiable and non-modifiable factors and how these factors affected mortality in patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine wards. Consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and dyspnea requiring O2 supplementation were included. The severity of lung involvement was categorized according to the patients' oxygen need. Six hundred and ten SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. The overall estimated 4-week mortality was similar in the two pandemic waves. Several variables were associated with mortality after univariate analysis, but they lacked the significance after multivariable adjustment. Steroids did not exert any protective effect when analyzed in time-dependent models in the whole sample; however, steroids seemed to exert a protective effect in more severe patients. When analyzing the progression to different states of O2 supplementation during hospital stay, mortality was almost exclusively associated with the use of high-flow O2 or CPAP. The analysis of the transition from one state to the other by Cox-Markov models confirmed that age and the severity of lung involvement at admission, along with fever, were relevant factor for mortality or progression.

Pharmacologic therapies of ARDS: From natural herb to nanomedicine

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common critical illness in respiratory care units with a huge public health burden. Despite tremendous advances in the prevention and treatment of ARDS, it remains the main cause of intensive care unit (ICU) management, and the mortality rate of ARDS remains unacceptably high. The poor performance of ARDS is closely related to its heterogeneous clinical syndrome caused by complicated pathophysiology. Based on the different pathophysiology phases, drugs, protective mechanical ventilation, conservative fluid therapy, and other treatment have been developed to serve as the ARDS therapeutic methods. In recent years, there has been a rapid development in nanomedicine, in which nanoparticles as drug delivery vehicles have been extensively studied in the treatment of ARDS. This study provides an overview of pharmacologic therapies for ARDS, including conventional drugs, natural medicine therapy, and nanomedicine. Particularly, we discuss the unique mechanism and strength of nanomedicine which may provide great promises in treating ARDS in the future.

The pathogenesis of coronavirus-19 disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causal agent of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a systemic illness characterized by variably severe pulmonary symptoms, cardiac conduction abnormalities, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as neurologic deficits, renal insufficiency, myalgias, endocrine abnormalities, and other perturbations that reflect widespread microvascular injury and a pro-inflammatory state. The mechanisms underlying the various manifestations of viral infection are incompletely understood but most data suggest that severe COVID-19 results from virus-driven perturbations in the immune system and resultant tissue injury. Aberrant interferon-related responses lead to alterations in cytokine elaboration that deplete resident immune cells while simultaneously recruiting hyperactive macrophages and functionally altered neutrophils, thereby tipping the balance from adaptive immunity to innate immunity. Disproportionate activation of these macrophages and neutrophils further depletes normal activity of B-cells, T-cells, and natural killer (NK) cells. In addition, this pro-inflammatory state stimulates uncontrolled complement activation and development of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETS), both of which promote the coagulation cascade and induce a state of “thrombo-inflammation”. These perturbations have similar manifestations in multiple organ systems, which frequently show pathologic findings related to microvascular injury and thrombosis of large and small vessels. However, the pulmonary findings in patients with severe COVID-19 are generally more pronounced than those of other organs. Not only do they feature inflammatory thromboses and endothelial injury, but much of the parenchymal damage stems from failed maturation of alveolar pneumocytes, interactions between type 2 pneumocytes and non-resident macrophages, and a greater degree of NET formation. The purpose of this review is to discuss the pathogenesis underlying organ damage that can occur in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding these mechanisms of injury is important to development of future therapies for patients with COVID-19, many of which will likely target specific components of the immune system, particularly NET induction, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and subpopulations of immune cells.

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.

Coronavirus 2019 disease: Are corticosteroids the key treatment? A retrospective case-control study in Brazil

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is the putative cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a serious disease that has severely impacted the world. Although vaccines have been developed, it will take time to inoculate the global population. Current guidelines have focused on the treatment of severe cases in hospital settings; however, a void has been created regarding appropriate measures for those in the initial stage of COVID-19 and those experiencing moderate disease severity progressing to desaturation. We assessed clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia at initial presentation treated with corticosteroids.

Methods

Data of 177 consecutive high-risk patients with COVID-19, monitored by telemedicine, were collected and analyzed. Of those, 68 patients were in the initial inflammatory phase of the disease without desaturation and received corticosteroids. The outcomes were evaluated after a follow up of 14 days. Four patients were immediately referred to the hospital because they had explicit desaturation at presentation.

Results

After 14 days, all patients in the inflammatory phase at presentation who were treated with corticosteroids before desaturation were alive and without complications. However, of the four patients with desaturation, one died at the hospital.

Conclusion

In this study, the use of corticosteroids during the initial pulmonary phase of COVID-19 before desaturation, in addition to daily monitoring of patients, prevented disease progression, decreased the risk of complications and incidence of hospitalization and death. However, additional studies with larger number of patients are needed to confirm these findings.

•

Use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients before desaturation increased survival.

•

Patients who reached desaturation needed hospitalization.

•

Approximately 25% mortality was observed in hospitalized patients.

•

The use of corticosteroids before desaturation prevented hospitalization and death.

•

Corticosteroids can be used to decrease the risk of complications of COVID-19.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Potentially inappropriate medication use by level of polypharmacy among US Veterans 49-64 and 65-70 years old

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are medications contra-indicated in particular circumstances. We sought to characterize PIMs by level of polypharmacy by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional drug dispensing study using electronic health records available through the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We extracted pharmacy fill and refill records during fiscal year 2016 (i.e., October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016) for all patients aged 49-70 who accessed care in the preceding fiscal year. PIMs were defined by the combined Beers and Laroche (henceforth Beers Laroche) criteria used for older patients and the PROMPT criteria used for middle-aged.

RESULTS

In the 1 499 586 patients aged 49-64, PIMs prevalence by PROMPT in patients with 0-4, 5-9, and ≥10 medications was 14.0%, 62.2%, and 86.1%, respectively, and by Beers Laroche was 14.3%, 63.4%, and 85.7%, respectively. In the 1 249 119 patients aged 65-70, PIMs prevalence by Beers Laroche was 14.8%, 59.9%, and 83.3%, and by PROMPT was 13.9%, 57.4%, and 82.0%, respectively. Meaningful differences in prevalence were shown by sex and race/ethnicity according to both set of criteria (e.g. PROMPT in patients with 5-9 medications: 66.1% women vs. 59.3% men; standardized-mean-differences [SMD] = 0.14; 61.7% of White vs. 54.5% of non-White; SMD = 0.15). The most common PIMs were digestive, analgesic, antidiabetic, and psychotropic medications.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of PIMs was high and increased with polypharmacy. Beers Laroche and PROMPT provided similar estimations inside and outside their target age, suggesting that PIMs are common among those with polypharmacy regardless of age.