Clinical impact of pre-admission antithrombotic therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter observational study

Use of chronic medications and risk of death due to COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential association between chronic exposure to medication and death related to COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study that included all patients hospitalised due to COVID-19 from 11 March to 4 June 2020 in our centre. Chronic patient medication was classified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification; demographic and clinical data were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of death for each drug exposure; each aOR represents an independent model adjusted by clinical factors related to COVID-19 mortality.

RESULTS

The study included 978 patients with a mean (SD) age of 64.5 (17.7) years who were predominantly male (531, 54.3%). Of all 978 patients, 182 (18.61%) died during the follow-up of the study. The most common Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 0, 4.2% were smokers, 16.7% were obese, 47.4% had hypertension, and 19.4% were diabetic. Most patients (70.8%) were prescribed at least one treatment, 32.5% used >5 treatments, and 8.6% >10. Our data suggest that COVID-19 hospitalised patients taking trimethoprim and analogues, leukotriene receptor antagonists, calcineurin inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists, selective immunosuppressants, propulsives, insulins and analogues, and benzodiazepine derivatives have a higher risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the association between chronic exposure to drugs and the risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Our results have shed some light on the impact of chronic drug exposure on the risk of severe COVID-19; however, further research is needed to increase the understanding about its relevance.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Arterial Thrombosis and Thromboembolism in COVID-19: An American College of Chest Physicians Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey.

RESULTS

The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19.

INTERPRETATION

The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients.

Anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19: A narrative review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can manifest itself in several ways, including coagulopathy and thrombosis. These complications can be the first and sometimes only manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can occur early or late in the course of the disease. However, these symptoms are more prevalent in hospitalized patients with venous thromboembolism, particularly those admitted to intensive care units. Moreover, various forms of arterial and venous thrombosis, or micro- or macro-vasculature embolisms, have been reported during the current pandemic. They have led to harmful consequences, such as neurological and cardiac events, nearly all resulting from the hypercoagulable state caused by this viral infection. The severe hypercoagulability observed in patients with COVID-19 accounts for most cases of the disease that become critical. Therefore, anticoagulants seem to be one of the most vital therapeutics for treating this potentially life-threatening condition. In the current paper, we present a thorough review of the pathophysiology of COVID-19-induced hypercoagulable state and the use of anticoagulants to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections in different patient groups, as well as their pros and cons.

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.

Extracardiac Prothrombotic Effects of COVID-19

COVID-19 infection triggers a heightened inflammatory response which in turn, increases thrombosis and thromboembolism. Microvascular thrombosis has been detected in various tissue beds which may account for some of the multi-system organ dysfunction associated with COVID-19. Additional research is needed to understand which prophylactic and therapeutic drug regimens are best for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic complications of COVID-19.

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

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

Risk of thrombotic events and other complications in anticoagulant users infected with SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study in primary health care in SIDIAP (Catalonia, Spain)

Background

The risk of thromboembolic events and COVID-19 complications in anticoagulated patients once hospitalized has been widely analyzed. We aim to assess these outcomes in primary health care (PHC) patients chronically treated with oral anticoagulants (OAC) in comparison with non-treated.

Methods

Cohort study including adults with COVID-19 diagnosis in the PHC records in Catalonia, Spain; from March to June 2020. Patients were matched between exposed and non-exposed to OAC based on age and gender in a 1:2 design. Data source is the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP).

Results

We included 311,542 individuals with COVID-19. After propensity score matching, we obtained a cohort of 20,360 people, 10,180 exposed and 10,180 non-exposed to OAC. Their mean age was 79.9 and 52.1% were women. Patients exposed to OAC had a higher frequency of comorbidities than non-exposed. Anticoagulated patients had a higher risk of hospital admission (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03–1.29), and of stroke and pulmonary embolism than non-anticoagulated (IRR 1,80, 95% CI 1.06–3.06). The risk of pneumonia was not different between groups (IRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84–1.30). We found a lower risk of death in patients exposed to OAC (IRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.55–0.65).

Conclusions

OAC users in our study had more comorbidities and were older than non-users, well known risks for hospitalization being confirmed with our results. We also found in our study that OAC exposure was not associated to an increased risk in the mortality rate, and it was associated with higher risks of hospital admission and thromboembolic events, although we cannot assess the effect of the interventions applied during hospital admission on the outcomes studied, as our database is a PHC database.

Trial registration

EUPAS register: EUPAS37205.

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

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

Associations between the use of aspirin or other antiplatelet drugs and all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Introduction: Whether aspirin or other antiplatelet drugs can reduce mortality among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial.

Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective studies on associations between aspirin or other antiplatelet drug use and all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 in the PubMed database between March 2019 and September 2021. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The I2 statistic was used to assess inconsistency among trial results. The summary risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were obtained through the meta-analysis.

Results: The 34 included studies comprised three randomized controlled trials, 27 retrospective studies, and 4 prospective cohort studies. The retrospective and prospective cohort studies showed low-to-moderate risks of bias per the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score, while the randomized controlled trials showed low-to-high risks of bias per the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The randomized controlled trials showed no significant effect of aspirin use on all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 {risk ratio (RR), 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90–1.03]}. In retrospective studies, aspirin reduced all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 20% [odds ratio (OR), 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.93)], while other antiplatelet drugs had no significant effects. In prospective cohort studies, aspirin decreased all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 15% [OR, 0.85 (95% CI 0.80–0.90)].

Conclusion: The administration of aspirin may reduce all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Antiplatelet therapy for patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials

Background

Hyperinflammation and coagulopathy are hallmarks of COVID-19 and synergistically contribute to illness progression. Antiplatelet agents have been proposed as candidate drugs for COVID-19 treatment on the basis of their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included early observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize and compare evidence on this issue.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify studies published up to Nov 7, 2021, and the results of registered clinical trials were followed up to Mar 30, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies assessing the effect of antiplatelet therapy in adult patients with COVID-19. Data on baseline patient characteristics, interventions, controls, and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included, of which 23 observational studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, and the remaining four RCTs (ACTIV-4B, RECOVERY, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP) were narratively synthesized. Based on 23 observational studies of 87,824 COVID-19 patients, antiplatelet treatment favors a lower risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–0.85; I² = 87.0%, P < 0.01]. The narrative synthesis of RCTs showed conflicting evidence, which did not support adding antiplatelet therapy to the standard care, regardless of the baseline illness severity and concomitant anticoagulation intensity.

Conclusion

While the rationale for using antiplatelet treatment in COVID-19 patients is compelling and was supported by the combined result of early observational studies, evidence from RCTs did not confirm this approach. Several factors that could explain this inconsistency were highlighted alongside perspectives on future research directions.

Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Pathophysiology and Translational Perspectives

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may complicate the clinical course of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is still unclear whether this condition is a direct consequence of the primary disease. However, several mechanisms including direct cellular damage, endothelial dysfunction, in-situ thrombosis, systemic inflammatory response, and oxygen supply-demand imbalance have been described in patients with COVID-19. The onset of a prothrombotic state may also be facilitated by the endothelial dysfunction secondary to the systemic inflammatory response and to the direct viral cell damage. Moreover, dysfunctional endothelial cells may enhance vasospasm and platelet aggregation. The combination of these factors promotes atherosclerotic plaque instability, thrombosis and, consequently, type 1 myocardial infarction. Furthermore, severe hypoxia due to extensive pulmonary involvement, in association with other conditions described in COVID-19 such as sepsis, tachyarrhythmias, anemia, hypotension, and shock, may lead to mismatch between oxygen supply and demand, and cause type 2 myocardial infarction. A deeper understanding of the potential pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ACS in patients with COVID-19 could help the therapeutic management of these very high-risk patients.

The pharmacology of anticoagulant drug treatment options in COVID-19 patients: reviewing real-world evidence in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

The optimal anticoagulation strategy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention among COVID-19 patients, hospitalized or in the community setting, is still challenging and largely based on real-world evidence.

AREAS COVERED

We analyzed real-world data regarding the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment, both parenteral and oral, for VTE prevention or atrial fibrillation (AF)/VTE treatment among COVID-19 patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses for VTE prevention correlates with COVID-19 disease status. LMWH prophylactic dose may be useful in COVID-19 patients at the early stage of the disease. LMWH intermediate or therapeutic dose is recommended in COVID-19 patients with an advanced stage of the disease. COVID-19 patients on VKAs therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) and VTE should switch to NOACs in the community setting or LMWH in the hospital setting. No definitive data on de-novo starting of NOACs or VKAs therapy for VTE prevention in COVID-19 outpatients are available. In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalization due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with NOACs may be considered.

Association of obesity with COVID-19 diseases severity and mortality: A meta-analysis of studies

Background

The literature on COVID-19 infection is growing every single day, and evidence of presence or absence of association between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes should be revisited. Therefore, this study summarizes the pooled association of obesity with COVID-19 adverse outcomes and mortality.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Science direct databases using specific terms and defined criteria. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA)) random-effect models were used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of infection severity and mortality associated with obesity.

Results

Results revealed that obesity is not associated with COVID-19 mortality (OR = 1.1; 95%CI: 0.8 to 1.3) but with other adverse outcomes (OR = 2.4; 95%CI: 1.7 to 3.3).

Conclusion

Our findings support previous findings that obesity is associated with COVID-19 severity.

Describing characteristics of adults with and without congenital heart defects hospitalized with COVID-19

Background

We sought to describe patient characteristics in adults with and without congenital heart defects (CHDs) during hospitalization for COVID‐19.

Methods

We analyzed data collected by Optum®, a nationally representative database of electronic medical records, for 369 adults with CHDs and 41,578 without CHDs hospitalized for COVID‐19 between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. We used Poisson regression to describe and compare epidemiologic characteristics, heart‐related conditions, and severe outcomes between these two groups.

Results

The distributions of many epidemiologic characteristics were similar between the two groups, but patients with CHDs were significantly more likely to be current or former smokers compared to patients without CHDs (risk ratio [RR]: 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 1.8). Patients with CHDs were also significantly more likely to have heart failure, stroke, acute arrhythmia, myocardial injury, acute pulmonary hypertension, venous thromboembolism, and obesity documented at the time of the COVID‐19 hospitalization (RR range: 1.5–4.7) but not respiratory failure. Patients with CHDs (7 days) had a significantly longer median length of stay than those without CHDs (5 days; p < .001) and were significantly more likely to have an intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR: 1.6, 95 CI: 1.2–1.9).

Conclusions

Our description of patients among a large population improves our understanding of the clinical course of COVID‐19 among adults with CHDs. Adults with CHD appear to be at greater risk for more severe CHD, including greater risk of ICU admission and longer length of hospital stays.

Association between oral anticoagulants and COVID-19-related outcomes: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early evidence has shown that anticoagulant reduces the risk of thrombotic events in those infected with COVID-19. However, evidence of the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes is limited.

AIM

To investigate the association between OACs and COVID-19 outcomes in those with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2.

DESIGN AND SETTING

On behalf of NHS England, a population-based cohort study was conducted.

METHOD

The study used primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 outcomes comparing people with current OAC use versus non-use, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, deprivation, and general practice.

RESULTS

Of 71 103 people with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, there were 52 832 current OAC users and 18 271 non-users. No difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with current use (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.04) versus non-use. A lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and a marginally lower risk of COVID-19-related death (aHR, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04) were associated with current use versus non-use.

CONCLUSION

Among those at low baseline stroke risk, people receiving OACs had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or unmeasured confounding, including more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk.

Bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients on low-molecular-weight heparin and antiplatelet therapy

Background. An increased incidence of thromboembolic events in hospitalised COVID‐19 patients has been demonstrated despite the use of low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH). Antiplatelet therapy prior to admission and early in the disease course has been hypothesised to be protective against thrombosis.Objectives. To describe the bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID‐19 receiving LMWH, with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore predictors of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes, and dosing practices of antiplatelet therapy and LMWH. Methods. We conducted a descriptive, cross‐sectional study of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes at Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the first COVID‐19 wave, in 808 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID‐19 receiving LMWH with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed if predictors were deemed statistically and clinically significant. Results. Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had similar bleeding outcomes compared with patients only receiving LMWH (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 ‐ 4.0). Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had increased odds of developing thrombosis compared with patients only receiving LMWH (OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.1 ‐ 10.7).Conclusion. The bleeding risk in COVID‐19 patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was not significantly increased. A potentially higher risk of thrombosis in patients receiving LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was observed. However, this could reflect confounding by indication. Randomised studies are required to further evaluate the use of antiplatelet therapy to treat hospitalised patients with COVID‐19.

Put out the fire: The pleiotropic anti-inflammatory action of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) should be the preferred anticoagulant strategy for preventing ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at increased thromboembolic risk and for treating deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) in the general population. Beyond their inhibiting action on the activated factor X (FXa) or thrombin (FIIa), NOACs showed some pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects. The present review aimed to describe the role of FXa and FIIa in the inflammation pathway and the potential anti-inflammatory effects of NOACs.

D,L-Lysine-Acetylsalicylate + Glycine (LASAG) Reduces SARS-CoV-2 Replication and Shows an Additive Effect with Remdesivir

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is still challenging healthcare systems and societies worldwide. While vaccines are available, therapeutic strategies are developing and need to be adapted to each patient. Many clinical approaches focus on the repurposing of approved therapeutics against other diseases. However, the efficacy of these compounds on viral infection or even harmful secondary effects in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection are sparsely investigated. Similarly, adverse effects of commonly used therapeutics against lifestyle diseases have not been studied in detail. Using mono cell culture systems and a more complex chip model, we investigated the effects of the acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) salt D,L-lysine-acetylsalicylate + glycine (LASAG) on SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. ASA is commonly known as Aspirin^® and is one of the most frequently used medications worldwide. Our data indicate an inhibitory effect of LASAG on SARS-CoV-2 replication and SARS-CoV-2-induced expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and coagulation factors. Remarkably, our data point to an additive effect of the combination of LASAG and the antiviral acting drug remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.

No association of low-dose aspirin with severe COVID-19 in France: A cohort of 31.1 million people without cardiovascular disease

Background

Aspirin at low doses has been reported to be a potential drug candidate to treat or prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

Objectives

We aimed to explore whether low‐dose aspirin used for primary cardiovascular prevention was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID‐19.

Method

A large cohort of patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities was constructed from the entire French population registered in national health care databases. In total, 31.1 million patients aged ≥40 years, including 1.5 million reimbursed for low‐dose aspirin at least at three time points during the 6 months before the epidemic, were followed until hospitalization with a COVID‐19 diagnosis or intubation/death for hospitalized patients.

Results

Cox models adjusted for age and sex showed a positive association between low‐dose aspirin and the risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29‐1.37]) or death/intubation (HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.33‐1.47]). In fully adjusted models, associations were close to null (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00‐1.06] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.98‐1.10], respectively).

Conclusion

There was no evidence for an effect of low‐dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention in reducing severe COVID‐19.

Effect of common maintenance drugs on the risk and severity of COVID-19 in elderly patients

Background

Maintenance drugs are used to treat chronic conditions. Several classes of maintenance drugs have attracted attention because of their potential to affect susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19.

Methods

Using claims data on 20% random sample of Part D Medicare enrollees from April to December 2020, we identified patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Using a nested case-control design, non-COVID-19 controls were identified by 1:5 matching on age, race, sex, dual-eligibility status, and geographical region. We identified usage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB), statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, P2Y12 inhibitors, famotidine and hydroxychloroquine based on Medicare prescription claims data. Using extended Cox regression models with time-varying propensity score adjustment we examined the independent effect of each study drug on contracting COVID-19. For severity of COVID-19, we performed extended Cox regressions on all COVID-19 patients, using COVID-19-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality as outcomes. Covariates included gender, age, race, geographic region, low-income indicator, and co-morbidities. To compensate for indication bias related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19, we censored patients who only started on hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

Results

Up to December 2020, our sample contained 374,229 Medicare patients over 65 who were diagnosed with COVID-19. Among the COVID-19 patients, 278,912 (74.6%) were on at least one study drug. The three most common study drugs among COVID-19 patients were statins 187,374 (50.1%), ACEI 97,843 (26.2%) and ARB 83,290 (22.3%). For all three outcomes (diagnosis, hospitalization and death), current users of ACEI, ARB, statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with reduced risks, compared to never users. Famotidine did not show consistent significant effects. Hydroxychloroquine did not show significant effects after censoring of recent starters.

Conclusion

Maintenance use of ACEI, ARB, warfarin, statins, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with reduction in risk of acquiring COVID-19 and dying from it.

D-dimer and CoV-2 spike-immune complexes contribute to the production of PGE2 and proinflammatory cytokines in monocytes

An overreactive inflammatory response and coagulopathy are observed in patients with severe form of COVID-19. Since increased levels of D-dimer (DD) are associated with coagulopathy in COVID-19, we explored whether DD contributes to the aberrant cytokine responses. Here we show that treatment of healthy human monocytes with DD induced a dose dependent increase in production of pyrogenic mediator, Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and inflammatory cytokines, IL-6 and IL-8. The DD-induced PGE2 and inflammatory cytokines were enhanced significantly by co-treatment with immune complexes (IC) of SARS CoV-2 recombinant S protein or of pseudovirus containing SARS CoV-2 S protein (PVCoV-2) coated with spike-specific chimeric monoclonal antibody (MAb) containing mouse variable and human Fc regions. The production of PGE2 and cytokines in monocytes activated with DD and ICs was sensitive to the inhibitors of β2 integrin and FcγRIIa, and to the inhibitors of calcium signaling, Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) pathway, and tyrosine-protein kinase. Importantly, strong increase in PGE2 and in IL-6/IL-8/IL-1β cytokines was observed in monocytes activated with DD in the presence of IC of PVCoV-2 coated with plasma from hospitalized COVID-19 patients but not from healthy donors. The IC of PVCoV-2 with convalescent plasma induced much lower levels of PGE2 and cytokines compared with plasma from hospitalized COVID-19 patients. PGE2 and IL-6/IL-8 cytokines produced in monocytes activated with plasma-containing IC, correlated well with the levels of spike binding antibodies and not with neutralizing antibody titers. Our study suggests that a combination of high levels of DD and high titers of spike-binding antibodies that can form IC with SARS CoV-2 viral particles might accelerate the inflammatory status of lung infiltrating monocytes leading to increased lung pathology in patients with severe form of COVID-19.

Aspirin in COVID-19: Pros and Cons

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ravaging the medical and economic sectors even with the significant vaccination advances. In severe presentations, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ repercussions provoking notable morbidity and mortality. The pathogenesis of such burdensome forms has been under extensive investigation and is attributed to a state of immune dysfunction and hyperinflammation. In light of these extraordinary circumstances, research efforts have focused on investigating and repurposing previously available agents that target the inflammatory and hematological cascades. Aspirin, due to its well-known properties and multiple molecular targets, and ought to its extensive clinical use, has been perceived as a potential therapeutic agent for COVID-19. Aspirin acts at multiple cellular targets to achieve its anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet effects. Although initial promising clinical data describing aspirin role in COVID-19 has appeared, evidence supporting its use remains fragile and premature. This review explores the notion of repurposing aspirin in COVID-19 infection. It delves into aspirin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology and clinical applications. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence highlighting the role of aspirin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency and critical care clinician: Medical management

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.

Association between pre-admission anticoagulation and in-hospital death, venous thromboembolism, and major bleeding among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan

Purpose

The coagulation activation leads to thrombotic complications such as venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy has been recommended for hospitalized COVID‐19 patients in clinical guidelines. This retrospective cohort study aimed to examine the association between pre‐admission anticoagulation treatment and three outcomes: in‐hospital death, VTE, and major bleeding among hospitalized COVID‐19 patients in Japan.

Methods

Using a large‐scale claims database built by the Medical Data Vision Co. in Japan, we identified patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 who had outpatient prescription data at least once within 3 months before being hospitalized. Exposure was set as pre‐admission anticoagulation treatment (direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist), and outcomes were in‐hospital death, VTE, and major bleeding. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for a single summarized score (a propensity score of receiving pre‐admission anticoagulation) for VTE and major bleeding, due to the small number of outcomes.

Results

Among the 2612 analytic patients, 179 (6.9%) had pre‐admission anticoagulation. Crude incidence proportions were 13.4% versus 8.5% for in‐hospital death, 0.56% versus 0.58% for VTE, and 2.2% versus 1.1% for major bleeding among patients with and without pre‐admission anticoagulation, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.25 (0.75–2.08) for in‐hospital death, 0.21 (0.02–1.97) for VTE, and 2.63 (0.80–8.65) for major bleeding. Several sensitivity analyses did not change the results.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that pre‐admission anticoagulation treatment was associated with in‐hospital death. However, a larger sample size may be needed to conclude its effect on VTE and major bleeding.

Clinical Outcome of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with History of Atrial Fibrillation

Background and objectives: Pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequent comorbidity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; however, little is still known about its prognostic role in infected patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the pre-existing AF as comorbidity would contribute to increase the risk for severe forms of COVID-19, worse prognosis, or even higher mortality. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department of nine Italian Hospitals from 1 March to 30 April 2020.The prevalence and the type of pre-existing AF have been collected. The correlation between the history and type of AF and the development of severe ARDS and in-hospital mortality has been evaluated. Results: In total, 467 patients (66.88 ± 14.55 years; 63% males) with COVID-19 were included in the present study. The history of AF was noticed in 122 cases (26.1%), of which 12 (2.6%) with paroxysmal, 57 (12.2%) with persistent and 53 (11.3%) with permanent AF. Among our study population, COVID-19 patients with AF history were older compared to those without AF history (71.25 ± 12.39 vs. 65.34 ± 14.95 years; p < 0.001); however, they did not show a statistically significant difference in cardiovascular comorbidities or treatments. Pre-existing AF resulted in being independently associated with an increased risk of developing severe ARDS during the hospitalization; in contrast, it did not increase the risk of in-hospital mortality. Among patients with AF history, no significant differences were detected in severe ARDS and in-hospital mortality between patients with permanent and non-permanent AF history. Conclusions: Pre-existing AF is a frequent among COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital, accounting up to 25% of cases. It is independently associated with an increased risk of severe ARDS in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; in contrast, it did not affect the risk of death. The type of pre-existing AF (permanent or non-permanent) did not impact the clinical outcome.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Effect of Coronary Artery Disease on COVID-19-Prognosis and Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Patients with pre-existing CAD were shown to have a more severe course of COVID-19, but this association has not been clarified. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between CAD and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Scopus, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 2 November 2021. There were 62 studies with a total population of 49,286 patients included in the meta-analysis. CAD occurrence in survivor vs. non-survivor groups varied and amounted to 9.2% vs. 22.9%, respectively (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.39; I² = 70%; p < 0.001). CAD was also associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease and was (10.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, for severe vs. non-severe groups (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.27; I² = 72%; p < 0.001). The role of history of CAD in mortality and severe condition in COVID-19 presents itself as prominent-although a risk of bias in retrospective trials needs to be assessed, in case of our meta-analysis the statistically significant results when it comes to higher mortality among patients with CAD compared to non-CAD patients, a more severe condition observed in patients with CAD, and a visibly more frequent admission to intensive care unit in patients with CAD, it seems that an incidence of cardiovascular events plays a role in COVID-19 prognosis.

Anticoagulation Prior to COVID-19 Infection Has No Impact on 6 Months Mortality: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high incidence of thromboembolic events in humans. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate if anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection may impact clinical profile, as well as mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was based on retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching (PSM), a group of 236 patients receiving any anticoagulant treatment prior to COVID-19 infection (AT group) was compared to 236 patients without previous anticoagulation (no AT group). In 180 days, the observation we noted comparable mortality rate in AT and no AT groups (38.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.51). Similarly, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in admission in the intensive care unit (14.1% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.20), intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.0% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.38), catecholamines usage (14.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.86), and bleeding rate (6.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.37) in both groups. Our results suggest that antithrombotic treatment prior to COVID-19 infection is unlikely to be protective for morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Effect of combining anticoagulant and glucocorticoid therapy on mortality in patients with severe COVID-19

Introduction

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread rapidly to more than 200 countries and regions worldwide. Although several options have been implemented in attempts to control the rate of COVID-19 infection, the mortality rates remain high. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether patients with severe COVID-19 will benefit from the combination of anticoagulant and glucocorticoid therapy.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 was performed. Several factors influencing patients with COVID-19 have been analyzed retrospectively, including basic conditions, inflammatory factors, coagulation parameters, medications, and outcomes. Continuous and categorical variables have been evaluated via binary logistic regression analysis to predict mortality. The association between anticoagulant treatment and outcomes has also been evaluated, stratifying patients according to glucocorticoid treatment.

Results

61 patients with severe COVID-19, including 23 critically ill patients have been enrolled in the study. In those with severe and critical illness COVID-19, mortality rate was lower in those who received combined anticoagulant and glucocorticoid with odds ratio of 0.003 ( p = 0.042) and 0.031 ( p = 0.046), respectively. In cases of severe COVID-19, those who were treated with both anticoagulant and glucocorticoid had lower mortality (17.6%) than those treated with glucocorticoid alone (31.8%), although this did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.321). In the critically ill COVID-19 patients who received both anticoagulant and glucocorticoid, there was significantly lower mortality (30%) than those who received glucocorticoid alone (77.8%) ( p = 0.047). Seventy-five percent of non-survivors of COVID-19 met the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (total points ≥5).

Conclusion

Patients with severe COVID-19 or critically ill patients with COVID-19 may benefit from the combination therapy of anticoagulant and glucocorticoid. As the disease getting severe, more benefits may be obtained from the combination therapy.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry

BACKGROUND

Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19.

METHODS

Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses.

RESULTS

7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Heparin and SARS-CoV-2: Multiple Pathophysiological Links

Low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, has been one of most used drugs to fight the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pharmacological properties of heparin recognize its specific ability, as with other oligosaccharides and glycosaminoglycan, to bind several types of viruses during their pass through the extracellular matrix of the respiratory tract, as well as its anticoagulant activity to prevent venous thromboembolism. Antithrombotic actions of enoxaparin have been testified both for inpatients with COVID-19 in regular ward and for inpatients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Prophylactic doses seem to be able to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in inpatients in the regular ward, while intermediate or therapeutic doses have been frequently adopted for inpatients with COVID-19 in ICU. On the other hand, although we reported several useful actions of heparin for inpatients with COVID-19, an increased rate of bleeding has been recorded, and it may be related to several conditions such as underlying diseases with increased risks of bleeding, increased doses or prolonged administration of heparin, personal trend to bleed, and so on.

Clinical conditions and echocardiographic parameters associated with mortality in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a recently recognized viral infective disease which can be complicated by acute respiratory stress syndrome (ARDS) and cardiovascular complications including severe arrhythmias, acute coronary syndromes, myocarditis and pulmonary embolism. The aim of the present study was to identify the clinical conditions and echocardiographic parameters associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a multicentre retrospective observational study including seven Italian centres. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 1 March to 22 April 2020 were included into study population. The association between baseline variables and risk of in-hospital mortality was assessed through multivariable logistic regression and competing risk analyses.

RESULTS

Out of 1401 patients admitted at the participating centres with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, 226 (16.1%) underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and were included in the present analysis. In-hospital death occurred in 68 patients (30.1%). At multivariable analysis, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, P < .001), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE, P < .001) and ARDS (P < .001) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. At competing risk analysis, we found a significantly higher risk of mortality in patients with ARDS vs those without ARDS (HR: 7.66; CI: 3.95-14.8), in patients with TAPSE ≤17 mm vs those with TAPSE >17 mm (HR: 5.08; CI: 3.15-8.19) and in patients with LVEF ≤50% vs those with LVEF >50% (HR: 4.06; CI: 2.50-6.59).

CONCLUSIONS

TTE might be a useful tool in risk stratification of patients with COVID-19. In particular, reduced LVEF and reduced TAPSE may help to identify patients at higher risk of death during hospitalization.

Outcomes of atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, emerging evidence has suggested that atrial fibrillation (AF) has an epidemiological correlation with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical outcomes of AF in COVID-19 remain inconsistent and inconclusive. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive description of the impact of AF on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies as of March 1, 2021. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations between AF (preexisting and new-onset) and in-hospital mortality, post-discharge mortality, and ventilator use.

RESULTS

A total of 36 individual studies were incorporated into our meta-analysis. The combined results revealed that preexisting AF was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (pooled OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60-2.67; p < 0.001), post-discharge mortality (pooled OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.24-5.83; p < 0.05), and ventilator utilization (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.33-15.38; p < 0.05) in patients with COVID-19. In addition, our data demonstrated that new-onset AF during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was significantly correlated with increased mortality (pooled OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 2.04-2.77; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of AF is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, which deserves increased attention and should be managed appropriately to prevent adverse outcomes.

Prognostic Implications of Right Ventricular Function and Pulmonary Pressures Assessed by Echocardiography in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

AIMS

Pulmonary involvement in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may affect right ventricular (RV) function and pulmonary pressures. The prognostic value of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), systolic pulmonary artery pressure (PAPS), and TAPSE/PAPS ratios have been poorly investigated in this clinical setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a multicenter Italian study, including consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19. In-hospital mortality and pulmonary embolism (PE) were identified as the primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. The study included 227 (16.1%) subjects (mean age 68 ± 13 years); intensive care unit (ICU) admission was reported in 32.2%. At competing risk analysis, after stratifying the population into tertiles, according to TAPSE, PAPS, and TAPSE/PAPS ratio values, patients in the lower TAPSE and TAPSE/PAPS tertiles, as well as those in the higher PAPS tertiles, showed a significantly higher incidence of death vs. the probability to be discharged during the hospitalization. At univariable logistic regression analysis, TAPSE, PAPS, and TAPSE/PAPS were significantly associated with a higher risk of death and PE, both in patients who were and were not admitted to ICU. At adjusted multivariable regression analysis, TAPSE, PAPS, and TAPSE/PAPS resulted in independently associated risk of in-hospital death (TAPSE: OR 0.85, CI 0.74-0.97; PAPS: OR 1.08, CI 1.03-1.13; TAPSE/PAPS: OR 0.02, CI 0.02 × 10^-1-0.2) and PE (TAPSE: OR 0.7, CI 0.6-0.82; PAPS: OR 1.1, CI 1.05-1.14; TAPSE/PAPS: OR 0.02 × 10^-1, CI 0.01 × 10^-2-0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic evidence of RV systolic dysfunction, increased PAPS, and poor RV-arterial coupling may help to identify COVID-19 patients at higher risk of mortality and PE during hospitalization.

Evaluation of Hospitalized Patient Outcomes in COVID-19 Infection for Continued versus Discontinued Use of Preadmission Antiplatelet Regimen

OBJECTIVE

In SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, it is unclear if continuation of preadmission antiplatelet regimens upon hospitalization will improve hypercoagulability outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed adult patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection for a 6-week period from March 13, 2020, to April 27, 2020. Preadmission antiplatelet regimen continuation for less than 75% of admission was compared to continuation for at least 75% of admission. Pregnancy, either death or withdrawal of care within 24 hours of admission, and admission beyond the studied timeframe were excluded. The primary endpoint was difference in World Health Organization COVID-19 Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement values (World Health Organization [WHO] scores) between maximum score during admission to that upon discharge. Secondary endpoints were mechanical ventilation requirement, mortality, radiologically confirmed venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and length of stay.

RESULTS

This study included 171 patients. Patients failing to continue antiplatelet regimens for at least 75% of admission (n = 76) had significantly worse WHO score differences than those who did (n = 95) (median -1 vs 2; P < .05). Mechanical ventilation requirement (57% vs 27%; P < .05) and mortality (58% vs 29%; P < .05) also favored antiplatelet continuation. All other endpoints were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Significantly improved WHO scores, mechanical ventilation requirement, and mortality occurred in patients continuing preadmission antiplatelet regimens in COVID-19 infection. Future prospective studies of COVID-19 patients with consistently collected baseline hypercoagulability markers (platelets, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and coagulation studies) and similar severe disease risk factors are required to confirm potential benefits of antiplatelet therapy during hospitalization.

Impact of cardiovascular disease on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contrasting data have been published about the impact of cardiovascular disease on Covid-19. A comprehensive synthesis and pooled analysis of the available evidence is needed to guide prioritization of prevention strategies. To clarify the association of cardiovascular disease with Covid-19 outcomes, we searched PubMed up to 26 October 2020, for studies reporting the prevalence of cardiovascular disease among inpatients with Covid-19 in relation to their outcomes. Pooled odds-ratios (OR) for death, for mechanical ventilation or admission in an intensive care unit (ICU) and for composite outcomes were calculated using random effect models overall and in the subgroup of people with comorbid diabetes. Thirty-three studies enrolling 52,857 inpatients were included. Cardiovascular disease was associated with a higher risk of death both overall (OR 2.58, 95% confidence intervals, CI 2.12-3.14, p < 0.001, number of studies 24) and in the subgroup of people with diabetes (OR 2.91, 95% CI 2.13-3.97, p < 0.001, number of studies 4), but not with higher risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.73-2.50, p = 0.34, number of studies 4). Four out of five studies reporting OR adjusted for confounders failed to show independent association of cardiovascular disease with Covid-19 deaths. Accordingly, the adjusted-OR for Covid-19 death in people with cardiovascular disease dropped to 1.31 (95% CI 1.01-1.70, p = 0.041). Among patients hospitalized for Covid-19, cardiovascular disease confers higher risk of death, which was highly mitigated when adjusting the association for confounders.

Chronic Diseases as a Predictor for Severity and Mortality of COVID-19: A Systematic Review With Cumulative Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Given the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the consequent global healthcare crisis, there is an urgent need to better understand risk factors for symptom deterioration and mortality among patients with COVID-19. This systematic review aimed to meet the need by determining the predictive value of chronic diseases for COVID-19 severity and mortality.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Complete to identify studies published between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Two hundred and seventeen observational studies from 26 countries involving 624,986 patients were included. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and performed a cumulative meta-analysis.

Results: We found that among COVID-19 patients, hypertension was a very common condition and was associated with higher severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mortality. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was the strongest predictor for COVID-19 severity, admission to ICU, and mortality, while asthma was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 mortality. Patients with obesity were at a higher risk of experiencing severe symptoms of COVID-19 rather than mortality. Patients with cerebrovascular disease, chronic liver disease, chronic renal disease, or cancer were more likely to become severe COVID-19 cases and had a greater probability of mortality.

Conclusions: COVID-19 patients with chronic diseases were more likely to experience severe symptoms and ICU admission and faced a higher risk of mortality. Aggressive strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic should target patients with chronic diseases as a priority.

COVID-19 and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Perspectives

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are frequently reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may impact patient clinical course and mortality. Although the underlying pathogenesis remains unclear, several potential mechanisms have been hypothesized, including oxygen supply/demand imbalance, direct viral cellular damage, systemic inflammatory response with cytokine-mediated injury, microvascular thrombosis, and endothelial dysfunction. The severe hypoxic state, combined with other conditions frequently reported in COVID-19, namely sepsis, tachyarrhythmias, anemia, hypotension, and shock, can induce a myocardial damage due to the mismatch between oxygen supply and demand and results in type 2 myocardial infarction (MI). In addition, COVID-19 promotes atherosclerotic plaque instability and thrombus formation and may precipitate type 1 MI. Patients with severe disease often show decrease in platelets count, higher levels of d-dimer, ultralarge von Willebrand factor multimers, tissue factor, and prolongation of prothrombin time, which reflects a prothrombotic state. An endothelial dysfunction has been described as a consequence of the direct viral effects and of the hyperinflammatory environment. The expression of tissue factor, von Willebrand factor, thromboxane, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 promotes the prothrombotic status. In addition, endothelial cells generate superoxide anions, with enhanced local oxidative stress, and endothelin-1, which affects the vasodilator/vasoconstrictor balance and platelet aggregation. The optimal management of COVID-19 patients is a challenge both for logistic and clinical reasons. A deeper understanding of ACS pathophysiology may yield novel research insights and therapeutic perspectives in higher cardiovascular risk subjects with COVID-19.

Prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

The prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection has not been well evaluated. We estimated the prognostic implications of AF in SARS-CoV-2 confirmed patients.The OpenData4Covid19 (https://hira-covid19.net) project is a global research collaboration on coronavirus disease (COVID-19), hosted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service of Korea. This dataset comprises all COVID-19-tested patients and their individual histories of medical service use from January 1, 2017 to May 15, 2020. All patients >19 years with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. The primary endpoint was a composite of death and intensive care unit admission.In total, 7162 adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in this study. The prevalence of AF was 1.8% (n = 130). Patients with AF had unfavorable characteristics, such as older age and higher prevalence of comorbidities. The primary endpoint was more common in patients with AF than in those without (33.9% vs 12.9%, P < .001). In the multivariable model, age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.035, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.030-1.040), female sex (OR: 0.618, 95% CI: 0.535-0.713), diabetes (OR: 1.341, 95% CI: 1.093-1.580), and chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.714, 95% CI: 1.541-4.777) were associated with the primary endpoint. However, AF was not an independent predictor of the primary endpoint (OR: 1.402, 95% CI: 0.932-2.108).Patients with AF and concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection had more comorbidities and a worse prognosis. However, an independent association between AF and adverse clinical outcomes was not evident.

Prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 related venous thromboembolism

COVID-19 pneumonia has been associated with high rates of thrombo-embolic complications, mostly venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is thought to be a combination of conventional VTE and in situ immunothrombosis in the pulmonary vascular tree. The incidence of thrombotic complications is dependent on setting (intensive care unit (ICU) versus general ward) and the threshold for performing diagnostic tests (screening versus diagnostic algorithms triggered by symptoms). Since these thrombotic complications are associated with in-hospital mortality, all current guidelines and consensus papers propose pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Several trials are ongoing to study the optimal intensity of anticoagulation for this purpose. As for the management of thrombotic complications, treatment regimens from non-COVID-19 guidelines can be adapted, with choice of anticoagulant drug class dependent on the situation. Parenteral anticoagulation is preferred for patients on ICUs or with impending clinical deterioration, while oral treatment can be started in stable patients. This review describes current knowledge on incidence and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated VTE and provides an overview of guideline recommendations on thromboprophylaxis and treatment of established VTE in COVID-19 patients.

Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome?

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO under CRD42020177154. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies.

RESULTS

Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10 mg/L, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49 U/L, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88 pg/mL, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 to 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73).

DISCUSSION

This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors that predict severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform clinical scores to support early decision-making.

The influence of pre-admission antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy on the illness severity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan

Introduction

Many articles have reported that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes coagulation abnormalities and pulmonary thrombosis, contributing to a poorer prognosis. The study aimed to evaluate whether pre-admission anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy prevented severe COVID-19 illness or not.

Materials and methods

We conducted a study to determine whether taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation agents before admission affected the severity on admission using a large nationwide cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan. We analyzed a large nationwide cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan from February 9 to July 31, 2020.

Results and conclusion

A total of 4265 patients from 342 facilities in Japan were included. Their use was associated with a slight reduction in the disease severity on admission in a propensity score-matched analysis which controlled for underlying diseases. However, this difference was not statistically significant.

Risk factors for mortality of adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalised in an emerging country: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe mortality of in-hospital patients with COVID-19 and compare risk factors between survivors and non-survivors.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort of adult inpatients.

SETTING

Tertiary healthcare teaching hospital in Guadalajara, Mexico.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalised from 25 March to 7 September 2020 were included. End of study: 7 November 2020.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient survival analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison of factors by the log-rank test. Mortality risk factors analysed by multivariate Cox's proportional-hazard model.

RESULTS

One thousand ten patients included: 386 (38%) died, 618 (61%) alive at discharge and six (0.6%) remained hospitalised. There was predominance of men (63%) and high frequency of overweight-obesity (71%); hypertension (54%); diabetes (40%); and lung (9%), cardiovascular (8%) and kidney diseases (11%); all of them significantly more frequent in non-survivors. Overweight-obesity was not different between groups, but severity of disease (Manchester Triage System and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) was significantly worse in non-survivors, who were also significantly older (65 vs 45 years, respectively) and had haematological, biochemical, coagulation and inflammatory biomarkers more altered than survivors. Mortality predictors were invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; OR 3.31, p<0.0001), admission to intensive care unit (ICU; OR 2.18, p<0.0001), age (OR 1.02, p<0.0001), Manchester Triage System (urgent OR 1.44, p=0.02; immediate/very urgent OR 2.02, p=0.004), baseline C reactive protein (CRP; OR 1.002, p=0.009) and antecedent of kidney disease (OR 1.58, p=0.04) CONCLUSIONS: Mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this emerging country centre seemed to be higher than in developed countries. Patients displayed a high frequency of risk factors for poor outcome, but the need for IMV, ICU admission, older age, more severe disease at admission, antecedent of kidney disease and higher CRP levels significantly predicted mortality.

Preadmission Statin Therapy and Clinical Outcome in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: An Italian Multicenter Observational Study

ABSTRACT

Statin therapy has been recently suggested as possible adjuvant treatment to improve the clinical outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of preadmission statin therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and to investigate its potential association with acute distress respiratory syndrome (ARDS) at admission and in-hospital mortality. We retrospectively recruited 467 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the emergency department of 10 Italian hospitals. The study population was divided in 2 groups according to the ARDS diagnosis at admission and in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the risk of ARDS at admission and death during hospitalization among patients with COVID-19. A competing risk analysis in patients taking or not statins before admission was also performed. ARDS at admission was reported in 122 cases (26.1%). There was no statistically significant difference for clinical characteristics between patients presenting with and without ARDS. One hundred seven patients (18.5%) died during the hospitalization; they showed increased age (69.6 ± 13.1 vs. 66.1 ± 14.9; P = 0.001), coronary artery disease (23.4% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.012), and chronic kidney disease (20.6% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.018) prevalence; moreover, they presented more frequently ARDS at admission (48.6% vs. 19.4%; P < 0.001). At multivariable regression model, statin therapy was not associated neither with ARDS at admission nor with in-hospital mortality. Preadmission statin therapy does not seem to show a protective effect in severe forms of COVID-19 complicated by ARDS at presentation and rapidly evolving toward death.

Cardiovascular Involvement in COVID-19: What Sequelae Should We Expect?

Several forms of cardiovascular involvement have been described in patients with Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19): myocardial injury, acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, myocarditis, pericardial diseases, arrhythmias, takotsubo syndrome, and arterial and venous atherothrombotic and thromboembolic events. Data on long-term outcome of these patients are still sparse, and the type and real incidence of cardiovascular sequelae are poorly known. It is plausible that myocardial injury may be the initiator of an inflammatory cascade, edema, and subsequent fibrosis, but also a consequence of systemic inflammation. The extent and distribution of ongoing inflammation may be the basis for ventricular dysfunction and malignant arrhythmias. Indeed, preliminary observational findings seem to emphasize the importance of close monitoring of COVID-19 patients with myocardial injury after discharge. Residual subclinical disease may be effectively investigated by using second-level imaging modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance, which allows better characterization of the type and extension of myocardial damage, as well as of the ongoing inflammation after the acute phase. In patients with venous thromboembolism, a very common complication of COVID-19, the type and the duration of anticoagulation therapy after the acute phase should be tailored to the patient and based on the estimation of the individual thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk. Large randomized clinical trials are ongoing to address this clinical question. Whether the severity of cardiovascular involvement, the type of treatments adopted during the acute phase, and the hemodynamic response, may influence the long-term outcome of patients recovered from COVID-19 is unknown. An etiological diagnosis of myocardial injury during the hospitalization is the first step for an appropriate follow-up in these patients. After discharge, the screening for residual left and right ventricular dysfunction, arrhythmias, residual thrombosis, and myocardial scar should be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas an active clinical surveillance is mandatory in any patient.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants use prior to COVID-19 diagnosis and associations with 30-day clinical outcomes

Background

It is unclear if direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use before hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis would potentially impact the severity and clinical outcomes thereafter. We compared 30-day hospitalization/re-hospitalization and clinical outcomes between patients on chronic DOAC therapy and patients not on oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods

We used data from TriNetX, a global federated health research network. Patients aged ≥18 years who were treated with DOACs at time of COVID-19 diagnosis between 20 January 2020 and 28 February 2021 were included, and matched with patients not on OAC therapy from the same period. All patients were followed-up at 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization/re-hospitalization, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

Results

738,423 patients were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 26,006 patients remained in the study (13,003 on DOACs; 13,003 not on OAC). DOAC-treated patients (mean age 67.1 ± 15.4 years, 52.2% male) had higher relative risks (RRs) and lower 30-days event-free survival as compared to patients not on OAC for all-cause mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12–1.44; Log-Rank test p = 0.010), hospitalization/re-hospitalization (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.64–1.82; Log-Rank test p < 0.001) and VTE (RR 4.51, 95% CI 3.91–5.82; Log-Rank test p < 0.001), but not for ICH (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.54–1.51; Log-Rank test p = 0.513).

Conclusion

In COVID-19 patients, previous DOAC therapy at time of diagnosis was not associated with improved clinical outcomes or lower hospitalization/re-hospitalization rate compared to patients not taking OAC therapy.

Impact of pre-admission antithrombotic therapy on disease severity and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19

Anticoagulant therapy is a cornerstone treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high rates of thromboembolic complications associated with this disease. We hypothesized that chronic antithrombotic therapy could play a protective role in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Retrospective, observational study of all patients admitted to our hospital for ≥ 24 h from March 1 to May 31, 2020 with SARS-CoV-2. The objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients receiving chronic anticoagulation (AC) or antiplatelet therapy (AP) prior to hospital admission. A total of 1612 patients were evaluated. The mean (standard deviation; SD) age was 66.5 (17.1) years. Patients were divided into three groups according to the use of antithrombotic therapy prior to admission (AP, AC, or no-antithrombotic treatment). At admission, 9.6% of the patients were taking anticoagulants and 19.1% antiplatelet therapy. The overall mortality rate was 19.3%. On the multivariate analysis there were no significant differences in mortality between the antithrombotic groups (AC or AP) and the no-antithrombotic group (control group). Patients on AC had lower ICU admission rates than the control group (OR: 0.41, 95% CI, 0.18–0.93). Anticoagulation therapy prior to hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with lower ICU admission rates. However, there were no significant differences in mortality between the patients receiving chronic antithrombotic therapy and patients not taking antithrombotic medications. These findings suggest that chronic anticoagulation therapy at the time of COVID-19 infection may reduce disease severity and thus the need for ICU admission.

Role of combining anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 treatment: a rapid review

Although primarily affecting the respiratory system, COVID-19 causes multiple organ damage. One of its grave consequences is a prothrombotic state that manifests as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. Therefore, understanding the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in the context of COVID-19 treatment is important. The aim of this rapid review was to highlight the role of thrombosis in COVID-19 and to provide new insights on the use of antithrombotic therapy in its management. A rapid systematic review was performed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Papers published in English on antithrombotic agent use and COVID-19 complications were eligible. Results showed that the use of anticoagulants increased survival and reduced thromboembolic events in patients. However, despite the use of anticoagulants, patients still suffered thrombotic events likely due to heparin resistance. Data on antiplatelet use in combination with anticoagulants in the setting of COVID-19 are quite scarce. Current side effects of anticoagulation therapy emphasise the need to update treatment guidelines. In this rapid review, we address a possible modulatory role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant combination against COVID-19 pathogenesis. This combination may be an effective form of adjuvant therapy against COVID-19 infection. However, further studies are needed to elucidate potential risks and benefits associated with this combination.