Anticoagulation, Bleeding, Mortality, and Pathology in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Venous and Arterial Thrombosis in COVID-19: A Nationwide Inpatient Analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is known to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). However, the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of clinical thrombosis for inpatients with COVID-19 are not well known. This study aimed to enhance our understanding of clinical thrombosis in COVID-19, its associated factors, and mortality outcomes.

METHOD

Hospitalised adult (≥18 years of age) patients with COVID-19 in 2020 were retrospectively identified from the US National Inpatient Sample database. Clinical characteristics, incident VTE, ATE, and in-hospital mortality outcomes were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify clinical factors associated with thrombosis and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 inpatients.

RESULTS

A total of 1,583,135 adult patients with COVID-19 in the year 2020 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database; patients with thrombosis were 41% females with a mean age of 65.4 (65.1-65.6) years. The incidence of thrombosis was 6.1% (97,185), including VTE at 4.8% (76,125), ATE at 3.0% (47,790), and the in-hospital mortality rate was 13.4% (212,785). Patients with thrombosis were more likely to have respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 (76.7% vs 75%, p<0.001) compared with patients without thrombosis. The main factors associated with overall thrombosis, VTE, and ATE were paralysis, ventilation, solid tumours without metastasis, metastatic cancer, and acute liver failure. Although all thrombosis categories were associated with higher in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 inpatients in univariable analyses (p<0.001), they were not in multivariable analyses-thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.70; p=0.19), VTE (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-1.00; p=0.05), and ATE (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.25; p=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of COVID-19 with thrombosis and VTE increases with increasing severity of the COVID-19 disease. Risk stratification of thrombosis is crucial in COVID-19 patients to determine the necessity of thromboprophylaxis.

A systematic review of thromboembolic complications and outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

Thromboembolic (TE) complications [myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE)] are common causes of mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review was undertaken to explore the incidence of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients from different studies. A literature search was performed using ScienceDirect and PubMed databases using the MeSH term search strategy of "COVID-19", "thromboembolic complication", "venous thromboembolism", "arterial thromboembolism", "deep vein thrombosis", "pulmonary embolism", "myocardial infarction", "stroke", and "mortality". There were 33 studies included in this review. Studies have revealed that COVID-19 patients tend to develop venous thromboembolism (PE:1.0-40.0% and DVT:0.4-84%) compared to arterial thromboembolism (stroke:0.5-15.2% and MI:0.8-8.7%). Lastly, the all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients ranged from 4.8 to 63%, whereas the incidence of mortality associated with TE complications was between 5% and 48%. A wide range of incidences of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications can be seen among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Therefore, every patient should be assessed for the risk of thromboembolic complications and provided with an appropriate thromboprophylaxis management plan tailored to their individual needs.

Antithrombotic Use Patterns in COVID-19 Patients from Spain: A Real-World Data Study

Antithrombotics have been widely used to treat and prevent COVID-19-related thrombosis; however, studies on their use at population levels are limited. We aimed to describe antithrombotic use patterns during the pandemic in Spanish primary care and hospital-admitted patients with COVID-19. Methods: A real-world data study was performed. Data were obtained from BIFAP's electronic health records. We investigated the antithrombotic prescriptions made within ±14 days after diagnosis between March 2020 and February 2022, divided their use into prior and new/naive groups, and reported their post-discharge use. Results: We included 882,540 individuals (53.4% women), of whom 78,499 were hospitalized. The median age was 44.7 (IQR 39-59). Antithrombotics were prescribed in 37,183 (4.6%) primary care subjects and 42,041 (53.6%) hospital-admitted patients, of whom 7505 (20.2%) and 20,300 (48.3%), respectively, were naive users. Prior users were older and had more comorbidities than new users. Enoxaparin was the most prescribed antithrombotic in hospitals, with higher prescription rates in new than prior users (2348.2, IQR 2390-3123.1 vs. 1378, IQR 1162-1751.6 prescriptions per 10,000 cases, p = 0.002). In primary care, acetylsalicylic acid was the most used antithrombotic, with higher use rates in prior than in naïve users. Post-discharge use occurred in 6686 (15.9%) subjects (median use = 10 days, IQR 9-30). Conclusions: Our study identified a consensus on prescribing antithrombotics in COVID-19 patients, but with low use rates in hospitals.

Inpatient treatment modalities of coronavirus disease 2019 in the Egyptian population: A bi-center retrospective observational study

Background

Many protocols for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been published. In addition to an abundance of studies and meta-analyses on the treatment of COVID-19, different medications used in the intensive care unit will have a significant impact on mortality. The study attempted to highlight, compare, and quantify the impact on outcomes.

Methods

Data were collected from subjects' files, encompassing all physiological parameters, hematological profiles, and available laboratory results. In addition, all treatment modalities administered to the subjects were documented in medical files. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards.

Results

The study included 120 subjects with confirmed COVID-19. Subjects treated with systemic corticosteroids (hazard Ratio [HR 0.45, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.01-1.32; P = 0.01) and tocilizumab (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49-1.98; P = 0.05) exhibited lower mortality, while those treated with remdesivir (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.43; P = 0.05) showed increased mortality. In patients with COVID-19, improved mortality was observed with early rather than late treatment with noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) (HR 0.01 vs. 1.72, P = 0.05) and tocilizumab (HR 0.45 vs. 1.50, P = 0.05).

Conclusions

The early use of NIV is associated with decreased mortality compared to late use. Corticosteroids demonstrate a mortality-reducing effect. In addition, early administration of tocilizumab is associated with decreased mortality compared to late use.

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.

The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A key question was whether increased intensity of anticoagulation would help prevent VTE and improve patient outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. At the start of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, our institution, Boston Medical Center, instituted a VTE risk stratification protocol based on patients' initial D-dimer levels, medical history, and presence of thrombosis to determine whether they should receive standard-dose prophylaxis, high-dose prophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study examining the association of degree of anticoagulation with outcomes in 915 hospitalized COVID-19 patients hospitalized initially on the general inpatient wards between March 1,, 2020, and June 1, 2020. Patients directly hospitalized in the ICU were excluded. Most, 813 patients (89%), in our cohort were on standard-dose prophylaxis; 32 patients (3.5%) received high-dose prophylaxis; 70 patients (7.7%), were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. VTE occurred in 45 patients (4.9%), and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.4% (49 deaths). On multivariable analysis of clinical outcomes in relation to type of anticoagulation, in the high-dose prophylaxis group, there was a trend towards increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.4 (0.8-7.5, 95% CI)) and increased ICU transfer (odds ratio 2.2 (0.9-5.7, 95% CI)). Our results suggest that patients receiving high-dose prophylaxis had more severe disease that was not mitigated by intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

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.

Comparison of Standard Versus Intermediate Prophylaxis Dose for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection

Background: COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. VTE prophylaxis reduces the risk of these events. The optimal dose of VTE prophylaxis however remains uncertain. Objectives: To compare the incidence of VTE in patients treated with either standard dose VTE versus intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 1786 adult patients admitted into the hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 infection between April 2020 to September 2021. For analysis, patients were divided into 2 cohorts: either standard dose prophylaxis treatment group (patients who received either unfractionated heparin 5000units 3 times a day or enoxaparin 30-40 mg daily subcutaneously) or intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis group (patients received either unfractionated heparin 7500 units 3 times daily or enoxaparin 30-40 mg twice a day subcutaneously). The primary outcome was incidence of VTE events described as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Secondary outcome was bleeding events. Results: During the study period, 398 (22%) patients were primarily treated with standard dose VTE prophylaxis, whereas 1388 (78%) patients were treated with intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. There was a significantly higher incidence of venous thromboembolism events noted in the standard dose prophylaxis treatment group when compared with the intermediate dose prophylaxis group (25/398 (6.3%) vs 35/1388 (2.5%) P < .001, [Odds Ratio 2.6197, 95% confidence interval = 1.5482-4.4327]). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, adjusting for age, obesity, and smoking, with the intermediate dose prophylaxis treatment group as the referent category revealed higher odds for incident venous thromboembolism events in the standard dose prophylaxis group. There was no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the 2 treatment groups (9 (2.3%) for standard dose prophylaxis group vs 46 (3.3%) for intermediate dose prophylaxis group P = .26). Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, patients receiving intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis experienced lower incident rates of venous thromboembolism events compared to those receiving standard dose VTE prophylaxis without a statistically significant increase in the risk of bleeding events.

The Interrelationship between HIV Infection and COVID-19: A Review of the Literature

The Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulting from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to significant morbidity and mortality in patients and put a strain on healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical characteristics and results of COVID-19 in immunosuppressed patients, such as people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH), considered at higher risk of severe disease, are not well-characterized. Accumulated evidence indicates that COVID-19 and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can interact in various ways. This review explored the similarities and differences in virology between SARS-CoV-2 and HIV, the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on PLWH, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PLWH care and prevention, and the influence of HIV-related factors on COVID-19. Discovering the potential link between HIV and COVID-19 may provide a novel way to avoid the factors of HIV and SARS-CoV-2 co-infection and advance future research.

Neutrophil extracellular traps induce persistent lung tissue damage via thromboinflammation without altering virus resolution in a mouse coronavirus model

BACKGROUND

During infection, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) are associated with severity of pulmonary diseases such as acute respiratory disease syndrome. NETs induce subsequent immune responses, are directly cytotoxic to pulmonary cells, and are highly procoagulant. Anticoagulation treatment was shown to reduce in-hospital mortality, indicating thromboinflammatory complications. However, data are sparsely available on the involvement of NETs in secondary events after virus clearance, which can lead to persistent lung damage and postacute sequelae with chronic fatigue and dyspnea.

OBJECTIVES

This study focuses on late-phase events using a murine model of viral lung infection with postacute sequelae after virus resolution.

METHODS

C57BL/6JRj mice were infected intranasally with the betacoronavirus murine coronavirus (MCoV, strain MHV-A95), and tissue samples were collected after 2, 4, and 10 days. For NET modulation, mice were pretreated with OM-85 or GSK484 and DNase I were administered intraperitoneally between days 2 to 5 and days 4 to 7, respectively.

RESULTS

Rapid, platelet-attributed thrombus formation was followed by a second, late phase of thromboinflammation. This phase was characterized by negligible virus titers but pronounced tissue damage, apoptosis, oxidative DNA damage, and presence of NETs. Inhibition of NETs during the acute phase did not impact virus burden but decreased lung cell apoptosis by 67% and oxidative stress by 94%. Prevention of neutrophil activation by immune training before virus infection reduced damage by 75%, NETs by 31%, and pulmonary thrombi by 93%.

CONCLUSION

NETs are detrimental inducers of tissue damage during respiratory virus infection but do not contribute to virus clearance.

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.

COVID-19 severity is associated with the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

The association between the severity of COVID-19 and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether the severity of COVID-19 is a risk factor for GI bleeding.

DESIGN

A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and December 2021. The severity of COVID-19 was classified according to the National Institute of Health severity classification. The primary outcome was the occurrence of GI bleeding during hospitalisation. The main analysis compared the relationship between the severity of COVID-19 and the occurrence of GI bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between the severity of COVID-19 and the occurrence of GI bleeding.

RESULTS

12 044 patients were included. 4165 (34.6%) and 1257 (10.4%) patients had severe and critical COVID-19, respectively, and 55 (0.5%) experienced GI bleeding. Multivariable analysis showed that patients with severe COVID-19 had a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding than patients with non-severe COVID-19 (OR: 3.013, 95% CI: 1.222 to 7.427). Patients with critical COVID-19 also had a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding (OR: 15.632, 95% CI: 6.581 to 37.130). Patients with severe COVID-19 had a significantly increased risk of lower GI bleeding (OR: 10.349, 95% CI: 1.253 to 85.463), but the risk of upper GI bleeding was unchanged (OR: 1.875, 95% CI: 0.658 to 5.342).

CONCLUSION

The severity of COVID-19 is associated with GI bleeding, and especially lower GI bleeding was associated with the severity of COVID-19. Patients with severe or critical COVID-19 should be treated with caution as they are at higher risk for GI bleeding.

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.

Chronic anticoagulant treatment and risk of mortality in SARS-Cov2 patients: a large population-based study

BACKGROUND

Hypercoagulability is often seen in COVID-19 patients and thromboembolic events appear frequent; antithrombotic treatment has been proposed therefore as part of standard treatment for COVID-19. Under these premises, prior-to-infection antithrombotic treatment may have a protective effect with respect to COVID-19 related thromboembolic events. Aim of the present work was to evaluate the impact of prior-to-infection anticoagulant or antiplatelet treatment on COVID-19 outcomes.

METHODS

Beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service of the Lombardy region of Italy aged ≥40 years with a COVID-19 diagnosis made between February 21st and July 18th, 2020 were included in the present study. The impact on COVID-19 mortality of pre-existing and chronic therapy with anticoagulant drugs (vitamin-K antagonist or new oral anticoagulants) was evaluated. Analyses were repeated with antiplatelets drugs.

RESULTS

Among 79,934 SARS-CoV-2 patients beneficiaries of the Regional Healthcare System of the Lombardy Region who received a diagnosis between February 21st and July 18th, 2020, chronic pre-existing anticoagulant assumption was present in 6.0% and antiplatelets in 12.7%. The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 20.6%, with male sex, age category and comorbidity burden being significantly associated to increased mortality risk. Anticoagulant chronic treatment was not associated with a reduction in mortality. Similar results were observed when repeating the analyses for pre-existing oral antiplatelet treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population-based study evaluating more than 79,000 COVID-19 patients, pre-existing antithrombotic therapy was not associated to a benefit in terms of mortality. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of antithrombotic therapy as standard treatment among COVID-19 patients.

Anticoagulation Use as an Independent Predictor of Mortality and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased incidence of cardiac arrhythmias and thrombotic events. The adverse cardiovascular outcomes related to ambulatory anticoagulation (AC) therapy in COVID-19 patients are unknown. The goal of this study was to identify the effects of AC use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This is a multicenter, retrospective study that identified 2,801 hospitalized COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients admitted between March 2020 and July 2021. Of these, 375 (13.4%) were ambulatory AC users. Data were collected from the electronic health records of hospitalized patients. Mortality included in-hospital death and hospice referral. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) included acute heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), myocarditis, pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pericardial effusion, pericarditis, stroke, shock, and cardiac tamponade. A Chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to account for comorbidities.

Results

AC non-users exhibited a higher incidence of mortality than AC users (13.9% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.001). However, MACE incidence was higher in AC users than AC non-users (44.8% vs. 26.8%, P < 0.001). The higher MACE incidence was driven by higher rates of acute HF (8.3% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001), MI (26.9% vs. 18.2%, P < 0.001), PE/DVT (16.3% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001), pericardial effusion (1.6% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.025), and stroke (2.9% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.018). After multivariate logistic regression, MACE incidence remained higher (odds ratio (OR) = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27 - 2.05, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality rate lower (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23 - 0.52, P < 0.001) in AC users.

Conclusions

Ambulatory AC use is associated with increased MACEs but decreased all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This study will help physicians identify patients at risk of cardiovascular mortality and direct management based on the identified risk.

Early treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin reduces mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, millions of people have been infected and died. Different therapeutic approaches have been recommended, but only a few have shown clinical advantages. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been recommended to prevent COVID-19-related thrombo-embolic events. We aimed to evaluate the impact of early treatment with LMWH on hospital admission and death in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted an observational monocentric retrospective study to evaluate the preventive role of LMWH on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were recruited from the beginning of the Italian epidemic to March 31, 2021. We excluded patients with missing data and those chronically exposed to LMWH. Treatment prescription was based on international and national guidelines and modified depending on clinical presentation and drug-drug interactions.

RESULTS

Seven hundred thirty-four SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were recruited, with 357 (48.6%) males and a median (IQR) age of 77.9 (65-85.7) years. 77.5% of people developed SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms and 62.8% were admitted to the hospital, and 20.2% died. Four hundred ninety-two (67%) started LMWH. In particular, 296 (40.3%) were treated within five days since symptoms onset. At logistic regression, early LMWH therapy was associated with lower mortality. Furthermore, remdesivir treatment showed a lower risk of death. On the contrary, age, BMI>30 kg/m2, neurological diseases, fever or dyspnea were associated with an increased risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment with LMWH was associated with lower mortality in our cohort. Further studies are needed to better assess the role of wider LMWH administration in terms of timing and regimen dose.

The Role of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets in Reducing Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Reporting Adjusted Data

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with prolonged prothrombin time (PT), active partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and increased D-dimer levels. Therefore, we aim to investigate if anticoagulants (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy play a role in mitigating COVID-19 and its associated thrombosis along with its effect on the mortality rate, the need for mechanical ventilation, and the risk of hospital admission. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 19, 2022. The studies were divided into two groups: Group A (any dose of AC/AP versus no AC/AP) and Group B (therapeutic dose of AC (tAC)/AP versus prophylactic dose of AC (pAC)/AP). Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for all statistical analyses. Adjusted data ratios were extracted from all included studies and pooled using the random effects model. A total of 33 studies were taken for the analysis of two groups (Group A: 285,065 COVID-19-positive patients, Group B: 2,421 COVID-19-positive patients). Overall analysis in Group A showed that the AC/AP group had a low risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to the control group (risk ratio (RR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.86). There was no significant difference in the need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60-1.08) and hospital admission (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.59) between the AC/AP and no AC/AP group. Alongside, in Group B, tAC/AP did not demonstrate a significant decrease in mortality as compared to pAC/AP (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.06). Treatment with AC and AP drugs can significantly decrease the mortality rate in COVID-19-infected patients, while AC also significantly reduces the need for mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19 and cardiovascular complications: updates of emergency medicine

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and SARS-CoV-2 variants, has become a global pandemic resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Severe cases of COVID-19 are characterized by hypoxemia, hyper-inflammation, cytokine storm in lung. Clinical studies have reported an association between COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with CVD tend to develop severe symptoms and mortality if contracted COVID-19 with further elevations of cardiac injury biomarkers. Furthermore, COVID-19 itself can induce and promoted CVD development, including myocarditis, arrhythmia, acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, and venous thromboembolism. Although the direct etiology of SARS-CoV-2 induced cardiac injury remains unknown and under-investigated, it is suspected that it is related to myocarditis, cytokine-mediated injury, microvascular injury, and stress-related cardiomyopathy. Despite vaccinations having provided the most effective approach to reducing mortality overall, an adapted treatment paradigm and regular monitoring of cardiac injury biomarkers is critical for improving outcomes in vulnerable populations at risk for severe COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the latest progress in clinic and research on the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 and provide a perspective of treating cardiac complications deriving from COVID-19 in Emergency Medicine.

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.

Embolization of active arterial bleeding in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of transarterial embolization in COVID-19 patients with an arterial bleeding and to investigate differences between various patient groups concerning survival.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed COVID-19 patients undergoing transarterial embolization due to an arterial bleeding in a multicenter study from April 2020 to July 2022 and analyzed the technical success of embolization and survival rate. 30-day survival between various patient groups was analyzed. The Chi- square test and Fisher's exact test were used for testing association between the categorical variables.

RESULTS

53 COVID-19 patients (age: 57.3 ± 14.3 years, 37 male) received 66 angiographies due to an arterial bleeding. The initial embolization was technically successful in 98.1% (52/53). In 20.8% (11/53) of patients, additional embolization was necessary due to a new arterial bleeding. A majority of 58.5% (31/53) had a severe course of COVID-19 infection necessitating ECMO-therapy and 86.8% (46/53) of patients received anticoagulation. 30-day survival rate in patients with ECMO-therapy was significantly lower than without ECMO-therapy (45.2% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.004). Patients with anticoagulation did not have a lower 30-day survival rate than without anticoagulation (58.7% vs. 85.7%, p = 0.23). COVID-19 patients with ECMO-therapy developed more frequently a re-bleeding after embolization than non-ECMO-patients (32.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Transarterial embolization is a feasible, safe, and effective procedure in COVID-19 patients with arterial bleeding. ECMO-patients have a lower 30-day survival rate than non-ECMO-patients and have an increased risk for re-bleeding. Treatment with anticoagulation could not be identified as a risk factor for higher mortality.

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.

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).

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.

Atherosclerosis, Cardiovascular Disease, and COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory and degenerative process that mainly occurs in large- and medium-sized arteries and is morphologically characterized by asymmetric focal thickenings of the innermost layer of the artery, the intima. This process is the basis of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), the most common cause of death worldwide. Some studies suggest a bidirectional link between atherosclerosis and the consequent CVD with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review are (1) to provide an overview of the most recent studies that point out a bidirectional relation between COVID-19 and atherosclerosis and (2) to summarize the impact of cardiovascular drugs on COVID-19 outcomes. A growing body of evidence shows that COVID-19 prognosis in individuals with CVD is worse compared with those without. Moreover, various studies have reported the emergence of newly diagnosed patients with CVD after COVID-19. The most common treatments for CVD may influence COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, their implication in the infection process is briefly discussed in this review. A better understanding of the link among atherosclerosis, CVD, and COVID-19 could proactively identify risk factors and, as a result, develop strategies to improve the prognosis for these patients.

Comparison of Activity and Safety of DSPAα1 and Its N-Glycosylation Mutants

DSPAα1 is a potent rude thrombolytic protein with high medicative value. DSPAα1 has two natural N-glycan sites (N153Q-S154-S155, N398Q-K399-T400) that may lead to immune responses when administered in vivo. We aimed to study the effect of its N-glycosylation sites on DSPAα1 in vitro and in vivo by mutating these N-glycosylation sites. In this experiment, four single mutants and one double mutant were predicted and expressed in Pichia pastoris. When the N398Q-K399-T400 site was mutated, the fibrinolytic activity of the mutant was reduced by 75%. When the N153Q-S154-S155 sites were inactivated as described above, the plasminogen activating activity of its mutant was reduced by 40%, and fibrin selectivity was significantly reduced by 21-fold. The introduction of N-glycosylation on N184-G185-A186T and K368N-S369-S370 also considerably reduced the activity and fibrin selectivity of DSPAα1. The pH tolerance and thermotolerance of all mutants did not change significantly. In vivo experiments also confirmed that N-glycosylation mutations can reduce the safety of DSPAα1, lead to prolonged bleeding time, non-physiological reduction of coagulation factor (α2-AP, PAI) concentration, and increase the risk of irregular bleeding. This study ultimately demonstrated the effect of N-glycosylation mutations on the activity and safety of DSPAα1.

Otolaryngology consultations for COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study of indications, interventions, and considerations

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences in inpatient otolaryngology consultations and interventions for patients based on COVID-19.

METHODS

Records were reviewed for all patients for whom otolaryngology was consulted at a high-volume tertiary care hospital from April 30, 2020 to October 1, 2020. Demographic information, length of stay, COVID-19 status, indication for consultation, and otolaryngology interventions were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

Bleeding composed a significantly higher proportion of otolaryngology consults in COVID-19 positive patients (28% vs. 8.4%, p<0.0001). Management of bleeding was the most common procedure performed in positive patients (n=37, 35%), and they had a higher median number of interventions performed when compared to bleeding patients who tested negative (1, IQR 1-2 vs. 1, IQR 0-1, p=0.04). COVID-19 positive patients with bleeding were more likely to expire than those with other indications for otolaryngology consultation (50% vs. 7%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Bleeding and associated interventions comprised the predominant discrepancy between COVID-19 positive and negative patients in our cohort. We encourage routine use of simple and cost-effective methods to decrease risk of bleeding.

Prescribing in a pandemic: Electronic prescribing aids to improve non-specialist adherence to COVID-19 guidelines

Introduction

The evidence around COVID-19 management is continuously evolving. Ensuring awareness of, and adherence to current guidance is challenging. As the second wave of COVID-19 emerged, we recognised the urgent need for better standardisation of patient care in the context of increasing patient load and acuity and the resulting redeployment of staff.

Methods

COVID-19 patients admitted to adult medical wards were identified via their positive swab results. An e-prescribing protocol which included five drugs was introduced and adherence to prescribing guidelines assessed via the electronic noting and prescribing system. Doctors' views of the prescribing protocol were assessed.

Results

Following introduction of the protocol, adherence to guidelines improved. The proportion of patients either prescribed dexamethasone or with a valid contraindication documented increased from 85% to 97% and for remdesivir this increased from 60% to 79%. There was also significant improvement in the prescription of 'as required' insulin for patients on steroids (26% to 48%) and oxygen (43% to 79%).93% of doctors surveyed were aware of the e-prescribing protocol and 81% had used it. Confidence in adhering to the protocols increased from an average of 3.3 to 4.5 out of 5 and 93% of respondents agreed that the protocol was easy to use.

Discussion

Overall, this demonstrates that electronic prescribing protocols can be effective in increasing adherence to guidelines and doctors felt this was a useful tool. This is especially important in a pandemic situation in which many doctors were redeployed outside of their usual specialties.

Safety and Efficacy of Different Anticoagulant Doses for Patients with COVID-19 in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high incidence of thromboembolic events, which significantly influence the risk of mortality. Anticoagulant therapy is generally recommended to these patients but the optimal dosing regimens require further investigations. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic, intermediate and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A systematic search for original prospective observational studies and clinical trials was performed in online databases from 2020 to 2022. A total of 13 studies (3239 patients) were included. The type of anticoagulant dosing showed no significant influence on short-term mortality (p = 0.84), deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.66), arterial thrombosis (p = 0.44), major bleeding (p = 0.35) and minor bleeding incidence (p = 0.46). An anticoagulation regimen significantly influenced pulmonary embolism occurrence (16% for prophylactic dose vs. 4% for therapeutic dose, p = 0.02), but the number of studies in the analysis was relatively low. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted in the ICU have no benefit from therapeutic doses of anticoagulants and that all three thromboprophylaxis regimes have a comparable effect on short term mortality and venous thromboembolism incidence but for pulmonary embolism, for which the results were inconclusive.

Prognostic markers in patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive critical support

Objectives

Several hematological and immunological markers, particularly neutrophil count, predict the severity of COVID-19. This study aimed at assessing hematological and coagulation parameters at different time points, to predict the complications or outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational multicenter study in ICU departments. A total of 118 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU were included. Clinical data and blood samples from routine hematology and coagulation tests were collected at admission, and on days 3, 7, and 14. The main outcome measures were high-flow-O₂ requirement, thrombosis, and 30-day mortality.

Results

The mean length of ICU stay for our cohort was 15.70 ± 19 days, and the median was 9 days. The length of stay was significantly prolonged in recovered patients (28.20 ± 29.90 days; chi-square P = 0.0022) and patients with thrombosis (34.40 ± 39.60 days; P = 0.024). A total of 113 (95.70%) patients received prophylactic anticoagulation after admission with different regimens; thrombosis was observed in four (3.90%) patients (P = 0.430), but none died. The venous thromboembolism score increased from a mean of 5.10 ± 2 on day 0 to 6.40 ± 2.80 on day 14 (P = 0.0002). The disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) score significantly correlated with thrombosis (P = 0.031). A total of 41.20% of patients in the ICU had a DIC score ≥4, and 11.40% had a score <4. Mortality was negatively associated with patients on high-flow O₂, 9 patients (10.80%) (P = 0.040), and positively associated with patients receiving ventilation, 16 patients (27.50%) (P < 0.001). An increase in white blood cell count (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR): 0.91; 95% CI: 0.80–1) and neutrophil count (SHR: 1; 95% CI: 1.01–1.05) was associated with greater disease severity and D-dimer level (SHR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.10–2.5).

Conclusion

The venous thromboembolism score was significantly higher for patients who died than those who recovered. Furthermore, mechanical ventilation was associated with high mortality, whereas the risk of thrombosis and ICU admission correlated with high D-dimer values and DIC scores. Therefore, D-dimer levels and DIC scores are prognostic markers that may predict disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.

METHODS

We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.

RESULTS

Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.

CONCLUSION

We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in cancer patients: 2022 update on vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and therapy in light of the omicron variants

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the associated infectious disease COVID-19 pose a significant challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Patients with cancer have been identified as a high-risk population for severe infections, rendering prophylaxis and treatment strategies for these patients particularly important. Rapidly evolving clinical research, resulting in the recent advent of various vaccines and therapeutic agents against COVID-19, offers new options to improve care and protection of cancer patients. However, ongoing epidemiological changes and rise of new virus variants require repeated revisions and adaptations of prophylaxis and treatment strategies to meet these new challenges. Therefore, this guideline provides an update on evidence-based recommendations with regard to vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in cancer patients in light of the currently dominant omicron variants. It was developed by an expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) based on a critical review of the most recent available data.

Flavonoids as a therapeutical option for the treatment of thrombotic complications associated with COVID-19

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has been one of the largest public health crises globally, while thrombotic complications have emerged as an important factor contributing to mortality. Therefore, compounds that regulate the processes involved in thrombosis could represent a dietary strategy to prevent thrombotic complications involved in COVID-19. In August 2022, various databases were consulted using the keywords "flavonoids", "antiplatelet", "anticoagulant", "fibrinolytic", and "nitric oxide". Studies conducted between 2019 and 2022 were chosen. Flavonoids, at concentrations mainly between 2 and 300 μM, are capable of regulating platelet aggregation, blood coagulation, fibrinolysis, and nitric oxide production due to their action on multiple receptors and enzymes. Most of the studies have been carried out through in vitro and in silico models, and limited studies have reported the in vivo and clinical effect of flavonoids. Currently, quercetin has been the only flavonoid evaluated clinically in patients with COVID-19 for its effect on D-dimer levels. Therefore, clinical studies in COVID-19 patients analyzing the effect on platelet, coagulant, fibrinolytic, and nitric oxide parameters are required. In addition, further high-quality studies that consider cytotoxic safety and bioavailability are required to firmly propose flavonoids as a treatment for the thrombotic complications implicated in COVID-19.

[Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study]

Introduction

COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.

Metohds

We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.

Results

Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.

Conclusion

We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Risks associated with prior oral anticoagulation use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients - A retrospective cohort study on 5392 patients from a tertiary centre

INTRODUCTION

There are conflicting data on prior oral-anticoagulant (OAC) use and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Due to uncertainties regarding associated risks with the prior OAC use, we have investigated this issue in a large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients from our institution.

METHODS

We have retrospectively evaluated a total of 5392 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized in our tertiary center institution in period 3/2020 to 6/2021. Majority of patients received low-molecular-weight-heparin thromboprophylaxis and corticosteroids during hospitalization. Patients' characteristics and clinical outcomes were documented as a part of a hospital registry project and were evaluated according to the prior non-OAC, warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) use.

RESULTS

Median age was 72 years, median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 4 points. There were 56.2% male patients. Majority of patients had severe (70.5%) or critical (15.8%) COVID-19 on admission. A total of 84.8% patients did not receive prior OAC, 9% were previously anticoagulated with warfarin and 6.2% were previously anticoagulated with DOACs. In the multivariate regression analyses, prior warfarin use was associated increased in-hospital mortality (OR 1.24, P = 0.048) independently of older age (OR 2.12, P < 0.001), male sex (OR 1.27, P < 0.001), higher CCI (OR 1.26, P < 0.001) and severe or critical COVID-19 on admission (OR 22.66, P < 0.001). Prior DOAC use was associated with higher occurrence of major bleeding (OR 1.72, P = 0.045) independently of higher CCI (OR 1.08, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Prior OAC use could be associated with worse clinical outcomes during COVID-19 hospitalization. These phenomena might be OAC type specific and persist after multivariate adjustments.

To Anticoagulate or Not to Anticoagulate in COVID-19: Lessons after 2 Years

A hypercoagulable state associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been well documented and is believed to be strongly supported by a proinflammatory state. The hypercoagulable state in turn results in increased incidence of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) seen in hospitalized COVID-19 when compared with hospitalized non-COVID-19 patient cohorts. Moreover, patients with arterial or VTE and COVID-19 have higher mortality compared with COVID-19 patients without arterial or VTE. Prevention of arterial or VTE thus remains an essential question in the management of COVID-19 patients, especially because of high rates of reported microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis. This has prompted multiple randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating different anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 patients at various stages of the disease. Herein, we review findings from RCTs in the past 2 years of antithrombotic therapy in critically ill hospitalized patients, noncritically ill hospitalized patients, patients postdischarge from the hospital, and outpatients. RCTs in critically ill patients demonstrated therapeutic dose anticoagulation does not improve outcomes and has more bleeding than prophylaxis dose anticoagulant in these patients. Trials in noncritically ill hospitalized patients showed a therapeutic dose anticoagulation with a heparin formulation might improve clinical outcomes. Anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant posthospital discharge may improve outcomes, although there is a large RCT in progress. Nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients have an insufficient burden of events to be candidates for antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation in pregnant and lactating patients with COVID-19, as well as antiplatelet therapy for COVID-19, is also reviewed.

Chronic anti-coagulation therapy reduced mortality in patients with high cardiovascular risk early in COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with provoked thrombo-inflammatory responses. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic this was thought to contribute to hypercoagulability and multi-organ system complications in infected patients. Limited studies have evaluated the impact of therapeutic anti-coagulation therapy (AC) in alleviating these risks in COVID-19 positive patients. Our study aimed to investigate whether long-term therapeutic AC can decrease the risk of multi-organ system complications (MOSC) including stroke, limb ischemia, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, in-hospital and intensive care unit death in COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized during the early phase of the pandemic in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all COVID-19 positive United States Veterans between March 2020 and October 2020. Patients receiving continuous outpatient therapeutic AC for a least 90 days prior to their initial COVID-19 positive test were assigned to the AC group. Patients who did not receive AC were included in a control group. We analyzed the primary study outcome of MOSC between the AC and control groups using binary logistic regression analysis (Odd-Ratio; OR).

RESULTS

We identified 48,066 COVID-19 patients, of them 879 (1.8%) were receiving continuous therapeutic AC. The AC cohort had significantly worse comorbidities than the control group. On the adjusted binary logistic regression model, therapeutic AC significantly decreased in-hospital mortality rate (OR; 0.67, p = 0.04), despite a higher incidence of GI bleeding (OR; 4.00, p = 0.02). However, therapeutic AC did not significantly reduce other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

AC therapy reduced in-hospital death early in the COVID-19 pandemic among patients who were hospitalized with the infection. However, it did not decrease the risk of MOSC. Additional trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of AC in preventing complications associated with ongoing emerging strains of the COVID-19 virus.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate outcomes with Aggrenox in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an immunoinflammatory and hypercoagulable state that contributes to respiratory distress, multi-organ dysfunction, and mortality. Dipyridamole, by increasing extracellular adenosine, has been postulated to be protective for COVID-19 patients through its immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, anti-coagulant, vasodilatory, and anti-viral actions. Likewise, low-dose aspirin has also demonstrated protective effects for COVID-19 patients. This study evaluated the effect of these two drugs formulated together as Aggrenox in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

In an open-label, single site randomized controlled trial (RCT), hospitalized COVID-19 patients were assigned to adjunctive Aggrenox (Dipyridamole ER 200mg/ Aspirin 25mg orally/enterally) with standard of care treatment compared to standard of care treatment alone. Primary endpoint was illness severity according to changes on the eight-point COVID ordinal scale, with levels of 1 to 8 where higher scores represent worse illness. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality and respiratory failure. Outcomes were measured through days 14, 28, and/or hospital discharge.

RESULTS

From October 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021, a total of 98 patients, who had a median [IQR] age of 57 [47, 62] years and were 53.1% (n = 52) female, were randomized equally between study groups (n = 49 Aggrenox plus standard of care versus n = 49 standard of care alone). No clinically significant differences were found between those who received adjunctive Aggrenox and the control group in terms of illness severity (COVID ordinal scale) at days 14 and 28. The overall mortality through day 28 was 6.1% (3 patients, n = 49) in the Aggrenox group and 10.2% (5 patients, n = 49) in the control group (OR [95% CI]: 0.40 [0.04, 4.01], p = 0.44). Respiratory failure through day 28 occurred in 4 (8.3%, n = 48) patients in the Aggrenox group and 7 (14.6%, n = 48) patients in the standard of care group (OR [95% CI]: 0.21 [0.02, 2.56], p = 0.22). A larger decrease in the platelet count and blood glucose levels, and larger increase in creatinine and sodium levels within the first 7 days of hospital admission were each independent predictors of 28-day mortality (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, while the outcomes of COVID illness severity, odds of mortality, and chance of respiratory failure were better in the Aggrenox group compared to standard of care alone, the data did not reach statistical significance to support the standard use of adjuvant Aggrenox in such patients.

COVID-19 Thrombotic Complications and Therapeutic Strategies

Shortly after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, clinicians rapidly recognized an apparent association between the disease and both arterial and venous thrombotic complications, which was confirmed in epidemiologic studies. Based on these data, hospitals empirically developed and implemented protocols with different strategies for anticoagulation of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) clarified the role of anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and recently discharged from the hospital. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19, observational comparative effectiveness analyses that provided hints of a benefit from anticoagulation, and finally the RCTs that established which patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation. These RCTs have demonstrated that hospitalized, noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation, but patients who are hospitalized and critically ill, discharged from the hospital, or not hospitalized do not benefit.

Network pharmacology- and molecular simulation-based exploration of therapeutic targets and mechanisms of heparin for the treatment of sepsis/COVID-19

Critically infected patients with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) are prone to develop sepsis-related coagulopathy as a result of a robust immune response. The mechanism underlying the relationship between sepsis and COVID-19 is largely unknown. LMWH (low molecular weight heparin) exhibits both anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulating properties that result in a better prognosis of severely ill patients with COVID-19 co-associated with sepsis-induced coagulopathy or with a higher D-dimer value. Heparin-associated molecular targets and their mechanism of action in sepsis/COVID-19 are not well understood. In this work, we characterize the pharmacological targets, biological functions and therapeutic actions of heparin in sepsis/COVID-19 from the perspective of network pharmacology. A total of 38 potential targets for heparin action against sepsis/COVID-19 and 8 core pharmacological targets were identified, including IL6, KNG1, CXCL8, ALB, VEGFA, F2, IL10 and TNF. Moreover, enrichment analysis showed that heparin could help in treating sepsis/COVID-19 through immunomodulation, inhibition of the inflammatory response, regulation of angiogenesis and antiviral activity. The pharmacological effects of heparin against these targets were further confirmed by molecular docking and simulation analysis, suggesting that heparin exerts effective binding capacity by targeting the essential residues in sepsis/COVID-19. Prospective clinical practice evaluations may consider the use of these key prognostic indicators for the treatment of sepsis/COVID-19.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Sinonasal complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2: A single center case series

Background

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in an unprecedented global pandemic. Most infected patients are either asymptomatic or have mild upper respiratory infection symptoms. However, life-threatening sequelae have been observed. In this report, we reviewed nine cases of patients with severe complications from sinonasal disease in the setting of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

IRB approval was obtained prior to study initiation. A retrospective chart review was performed of patients admitted to a tertiary hospital with complex sinonasal symptoms that required otolaryngologic evaluation and management in the setting of concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

Nine patients, ranging from ages 3 to 71 years, with sinonasal disease and simultaneous SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. Initial presentations ranged from asymptomatic infection to mild/moderate disease (nasal obstruction, cough) or more severe sequelae including epistaxis, proptosis, or neurologic changes. SARS-CoV-2 tests were positive from one to 12 days after symptom onset, with three patients receiving SARS-CoV-2-directed treatment. Complex disease presentations included bilateral orbital abscesses, suppurative intracranial infection, cavernous sinus thrombosis with epidural abscess, systemic hematogenous spread with abscess development in four distinct anatomic locations, and hemorrhagic benign adenoidal tissue. Eight of nine patients (88.8%) required operative intervention. Patients with abscesses also required prolonged, culture-directed antibiotic courses.

Conclusion

Though most SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic and/or self-limited, there is significant morbidity and mortality in patients with severe disease sequela as outlined in our reported cases. This suggests early identification and treatment of sinonasal disease in this patient population is critical to minimizing poor outcomes. Further research on the pathophysiology of these atypical presentations is needed.

Level of Evidence

4 (Case Series).

The Collateral Benefit of COVID Pandemic: Improved Pharmacological Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Practices in Non-COVID Patients

Background

COVID-19 creates a hypercoagulable state with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Of those, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent, and numerous studies have highlighted the importance of VTE prophylaxis. Pre-pandemic VTE prophylaxis practices have already been poor, despite guidelines. We hypothesized that the gap between guidelines and practices might have been closed due to increased awareness.

Materials and Methods

Non-COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the internal medicine ward of a university hospital between January 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2021, were assessed. VTE risk and thromboprophylaxis requirements were assessed using the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). The results were compared with the findings of the study conducted in the same setting before the pandemic.

Results

A total of 267 patients were included, and 81 patients (30.3%) received prophylaxis. A total of 128 patients' (47.9%) PPS was ≥ 4, and 69 patients (53.9%) received prophylaxis; 12 low-risk patients (8.6%) received prophylaxis although it was not indicated. Compared to the pre-pandemic figures, both appropriate prophylaxis use and overuse rates have risen. While the increment rate of appropriate prophylaxis was statistically significant, the increment rate of overuse did not reach statistical significance. Patients hospitalized for infectious diseases and respiratory failure were more likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated a significant increase in appropriate pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among high-risk patients. Besides all the collateral damage the pandemic has created, it might also have brought collateral benefits with regards to VTE prophylaxis.

Microvascular lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome in patients with COVID-19: Insights from lung intravascular optical coherence tomography

Background

Microvascular lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome has been proposed as a possible mechanism of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients. However, it has only been observed in post-mortem studies and has never been documented in vivo, probably because of a lack of CT scan sensitivity in small pulmonary arteries. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety, tolerability, and diagnostic value of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for the assessment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia for pulmonary microvascular thromboinflammatory syndrome.

Methods

The COVID-OCT trial was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, interventional clinical study. Two cohorts of patients were included in the study and underwent pulmonary OCT evaluation. Cohort A consisted of patients with COVID-19 with a negative CT scan for pulmonary thrombosis and elevated thromboinflammatory markers (D-dimer > 10,000 ng/mL or 5,000 < D-dimer < 10,000 ng/mL and one of: C-reactive Protein > 100 mg/dL, IL-6 > 6 pg/mL, or ferritin > 900 ng/L). Cohort B consisted of patients with COVID-19 and a CT scan positive for pulmonary thrombosis. The primary endpoints of the study were: (i) to evaluate the overall safety of OCT investigation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and (ii) to report on the potential value of OCT as a novel diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of microvascular pulmonary thrombosis in COVID-19 patients.

Results

A total of 13 patients were enrolled. The mean number of OCT runs performed in each patient was 6.1 ± 2.0, both in ground glass and healthy lung areas, achieving a good evaluation of the distal pulmonary arteries. Overall, OCT runs identified microvascular thrombosis in 8 patients (61.5%): 5 cases of red thrombus, 1 case of white thrombus, and 2 cases of mixed thrombus. In Cohort A, the minimal lumen area was 3.5 ± 4.6 mm², with stenosis of 60.9 ± 35.9% of the area, and the mean length of thrombus-containing lesions was 5.4 ± 3.0 mm. In Cohort B, the percentage area obstruction was 92.6 ± 2.6, and the mean thrombus-containing lesion length was 14.1 ± 13.9 mm. No peri-procedural complications occurred in any of the 13 patients.

Conclusion

OCT appears to be a safe and accurate method of evaluating the distal pulmonary arteries in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Here, it enabled the first in vivo documentation of distal pulmonary arterial thrombosis in patients with elevated thromboinflammatory markers, even when their CT angiogram was negative for pulmonary thrombosis.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier NCT04410549.

The therapeutic relevance of the Kallikrein-Kinin axis in SARS-cov-2-induced vascular pathology

While coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) begins as a respiratory infection, it progresses as a systemic disease involving multiorgan microthromboses that underly the pathology. SARS-CoV-2 enters host cells via attachment to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. ACE2 is widely expressed in a multitude of tissues, including the lung (alveolar cells), heart, intestine, kidney, testis, gallbladder, vasculature (endothelial cells), and immune cells. Interference in ACE2 signaling could drive the aforementioned systemic pathologies, such as endothelial dysfunction, microthromboses, and systemic inflammation, that are typically seen in patients with severe COVID-19. ACE2 is a component of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and is intimately associated with the plasma kallikrein-kinin system (KKS). As many papers are published on the role of ACE and ACE2 in COVID-19, we will review the role of bradykinin, and more broadly the KSS, in SARS-CoV-2-induced vascular dysfunction. Furthermore, we will discuss the possible therapeutic interventions that are approved and in development for the following targets: coagulation factor XII (FXII), tissue kallikrein (KLK1), plasma kallikrein (KLKB1), bradykinin (BK), plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1), bradykinin B1 receptor (BKB1R), bradykinin B2 receptor (BKB2R), ACE, furin, and the NLRP3 inflammasome. Understanding these targets may prove of value in the treatment of COVID-19 as well as in other virus-induced coagulopathies in the future.

The intensity of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An observational, comparative effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions.

EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME

We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death.

RESULTS

We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration.

CONCLUSION

Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.

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.

Chronic Anti-Coagulation Therapy Reduced Mortality In Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk Early In COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with provoked thrombo-inflammatory responses. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic this was thought to contribute to hypercoagulability and multi-organ system complications in infected patients. Limited studies have evaluated the impact of therapeutic anti-coagulation therapy (AC) in alleviate these risks in COVID-19 positive patients. Our study aimed to investigate whether long-term therapeutic AC can decrease the risk of multi-organ system complications (MOSC) including stroke, limb ischemia, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, in-hospital and intensive care unit death in COVID-19 positive patients during the early phase of the pandemic in the United States. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all COVID-19 positive United States Veterans between March 2020 and October 2020. Patients receiving continuous therapeutic AC for a least 30 days prior to or after their initial COVID-19 positive test were assigned to the AC group. Patients who did not receive AC were included in a control group. We analyzed the primary study outcome of MOSC between the AC and control groups using binary logistic regression analysis (Odd-Ratio; OR). Results: We identified 48,066 COVID-19 patients, of them 879 (1.8%) were receiving continuous therapeutic AC. The AC cohort had significantly worse comorbidities than the control group. On the adjusted binary logistic regression model, therapeutic AC significantly decreased in-hospital mortality rate (OR; 0.67, p = 0.04), despite a higher incidence of GI bleeding (OR; 4.00, p = 0.02). However, therapeutic AC did not significantly reduce other adverse events. Conclusion: AC therapy reduced in-hospital death early in the COVID-19 pandemic among patients who were hospitalized with the infection. However, it did not decrease the risk of MOSC. Additional trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of AC in preventing complications associated with ongoing emerging strains of the COVID-19 virus.

Chronic Anti-Coagulation Therapy Reduced Mortality In Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk Early In COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with provoked thrombo-inflammatory responses. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic this was thought to contribute to hypercoagulability and multi-organ system complications in infected patients. Limited studies have evaluated the impact of therapeutic anti-coagulation therapy (AC) in alleviate these risks in COVID-19 positive patients. Our study aimed to investigate whether long-term therapeutic AC can decrease the risk of multi-organ system complications (MOSC) including stroke, limb ischemia, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, in-hospital and intensive care unit death in COVID-19 positive patients during the early phase of the pandemic in the United States. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all COVID-19 positive United States Veterans between March 2020 and October 2020. Patients receiving continuous therapeutic AC for a least 30 days prior to or after their initial COVID-19 positive test were assigned to the AC group. Patients who did not receive AC were included in a control group. We analyzed the primary study outcome of MOSC between the AC and control groups using binary logistic regression analysis (Odd-Ratio; OR). Results: We identified 48,066 COVID-19 patients, of them 879 (1.8%) were receiving continuous therapeutic AC. The AC cohort had significantly worse comorbidities than the control group. On the adjusted binary logistic regression model, therapeutic AC significantly decreased in-hospital mortality rate (OR; 0.67, p = 0.04), despite a higher incidence of GI bleeding (OR; 4.00, p = 0.02). However, therapeutic AC did not significantly reduce other adverse events. Conclusion: AC therapy reduced in-hospital death early in the COVID-19 pandemic among patients who were hospitalized with the infection. However, it did not decrease the risk of MOSC. Additional trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of AC in preventing complications associated with ongoing emerging strains of the COVID-19 virus.

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation versus therapeutic anticoagulation in hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 disease-related coagulopathy and thromboembolic complication, an important aspect of the disease pathophysiology, are frequent and associated with poor outcomes, particularly significant in hospitalized patients. Undoubtedly, anticoagulation forms a cornerstone for the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the appropriate dosing has been inconclusive and a subject of research. We aim to review existing literature and compare safety and efficacy outcomes of prophylactic and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in such patients.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic dose anticoagulation when compared with therapeutic dosing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases from 2019 to 2021, without any restriction by language. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. RCTs that directly compare therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulants dosing and are not placebo-controlled trials were included. Analyses of data were conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird analysis). The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265948).

RESULTS

We included three studies in the final quantitative analysis. The incidence of thromboembolic events in therapeutic anticoagulation was lower in comparison with prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and reached statistical significance [RR 1·45, 95% CI (1.07, 1.97) I² -0%], whereas major bleeding as an adverse event was found lower in prophylactic anticoagulation in comparison with therapeutic anticoagulation that was statistically significant [RR 0·42, 95% CI(0.19, 0.93) I² -0%].

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that therapeutic dose anticoagulation is more effective in preventing thromboembolic events than prophylactic dose but significantly increases the risk of major bleeding as an adverse event. So, the risk-benefit ratio must be considered while using either of them.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

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.