Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States

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.

The role of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare-workers in acute care hospitals in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vulnerable patient populations in particular must be protected, and clinics should not become transmission hotspots to avoid delaying medical treatments independent of COVID. Because asymptomatic transmission has been described, routine screening of asymptomatic HCW would potentially be able to interrupt chains of infection through early detection.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus with regard to non-incident related testing of healthcare workers using polymerase chain reaction on May 4th 2021. Studies since January 2020 were included. An assessment of risk of bias and representativeness was performed.

RESULTS

The search identified 39 studies with heterogeneous designs. Data collection of the included studies took place from January to August 2020. The studies were conducted worldwide and the sample size of the included HCW ranged from 70 to 9449 participants. In total, 1000 of 51,700 (1.9%) asymptomatic HCW were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR testing. The proportion of positive test results ranged between 0 and 14.3%. No study reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneous proportions might be explained by different regional incidences, lock-downs, and pre-analytical pitfalls that reduce the sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab. The very high prevalence in some studies indicates that screening HCW for SARS-CoV-2 may be important particularly in geographical regions and pandemic periods with a high-incidence. With low numbers and an increasing rate of vaccinated HCW, a strict cost-benefit consideration must be made, especially in times of low incidences. Since we found no studies that reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days, re-evaluation should be done when these are available.

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.

Stratification of the risk of developing severe or lethal Covid-19 using a new score from a large Italian population: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a population-based risk stratification model (COVID-19 Vulnerability Score) for predicting severe/fatal clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection, using the multiple source information provided by the healthcare utilisation databases of the Italian National Health Service.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Population-based study using the healthcare utilisation database from five Italian regions.

PARTICIPANTS

Beneficiaries of the National Health Service, aged 18-79 years, who had the residentship in the five participating regions. Residents in a nursing home were not included. The model was built from the 7 655 502 residents of Lombardy region.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The score included gender, age and 29 conditions/diseases selected from a list of 61 conditions which independently predicted the primary outcome, that is, severe (intensive care unit admission) or fatal manifestation of COVID-19 experienced during the first epidemic wave (until June 2020). The score performance was validated by applying the model to several validation sets, that is, Lombardy population (second epidemic wave), and the other four Italian regions (entire 2020) for a total of about 15.4 million individuals and 7031 outcomes. Predictive performance was assessed by discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration (plot of observed vs predicted outcomes).

RESULTS

We observed a clear positive trend towards increasing outcome incidence as the score increased. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the COVID-19 Vulnerability Score ranged from 0.85 to 0.88, which compared favourably with the areas of generic scores such as the Charlson Comorbidity Score (0.60). A remarkable performance of the score on the calibration of observed and predicted outcome probability was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A score based on data used for public health management accurately predicted the occurrence of severe/fatal manifestations of COVID-19. Use of this score may help health decision-makers to more accurately identify high-risk citizens who need early preventive or treatment interventions.

Internal Bleeding Extending to the Retroperitoneum and Right Psoas With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 {SARS-CoV-2}) infection has been associated with thromboembolic events and coagulopathy, leading to a surge in the use of anticoagulants. The dose and duration of therapy differ according to the followed protocol. Several case reports documented fatal bleeding as an adverse effect of anticoagulation. We report a case of nearly fatal retroperitoneal bleed in an otherwise healthy 60-year-old man who developed severe COVID-19 requiring ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. The development of retroperitoneal bleed led to a 50% drop in his hemoglobin. The patient happens to be a Jehovah's Witness, and the family refused blood transfusion, which added to the complexity of the situation. Anticoagulation is associated with a potential risk of fatal bleed in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are different protocols of anticoagulation in the management of SARS-CoV-2. The risk of bleeding vs thrombosis should be weighed on a case-by-case basis. A high degree of suspicion, early intervention, and knowledge of alternatives to blood transfusion can improve outcomes.

Anxiety, depression and concerns of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

In December 2019, the emerging of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has influenced the whole world. The current pandemic also triggers several psychological changes. Uncertainties and changes in health practices may cause anxiety, depression, and concerns on vulnerable populations such as pregnant. This study aims to survey the pregnant women to capture the psychological impact and perceptions during the pandemic.

METHODS

A total of 297 pregnant women aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled in May 2020. We evaluated the hard-copy survey included questions about demographic and clinical information of patients, 95% confidence intervals of a COVID-19-related questionnaire in a Likert scale and 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

A total of 297 pregnant women were included in this study with a mean age of 27.64. Most patients (82.5%) had concerns about infecting their babies during delivery. The fear of infection of the fetus during delivery revealed elderly age and having anxiety as the unique significant risk factors. Mean HADS-A and HADS-D scores were 7.94 (± 4.03) and 7.23 (± 3.84), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed having anxiety was associated with a high HADS-D score and concern about the inability to reach obstetrician, and being in advanced age, having a high HADS-A score, and concern about the inability to reach obstetrician demonstrated significant effects on HADS-D score.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in future pandemics, communications and reassurance of the patients should be prioritized upon their routine ante-natal care to avoid increased levels of anxiety and even depression.

Different Anticoagulant Regimens, Mortality, and Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and an Updated Meta-Analysis

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the association of anticoagulants and their dosage with in-hospital all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Articles were retrieved until January 8, 2021, by searching in seven electronic databases. The main outcome was all-cause mortality occurred during hospitalization. Data were combined using the general variance-based method on the effect estimate for each study. Separate meta-analyses according to type of COVID-19 patients (hospitalized or intensive care unit [ICU] patients), anticoagulants (mainly heparin), and regimens (therapeutic or prophylactic) were conducted. A total of 29 articles were selected, but 23 retrospective studies were eligible for quantitative meta-analyses. No clinical trial was retrieved. The majority of studies were of good quality; however, 34% did not distinguish heparin from other anticoagulants. Meta-analysis on 25,719 hospitalized COVID-19 patients showed that anticoagulant use was associated with 50% reduced in-hospital mortality risk (pooled risk ratio [RR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.62; I ²: 87%). Both anticoagulant regimens (therapeutic and prophylactic) reduced in-hospital all-cause mortality, compared with no anticoagulation. Particularly in ICU patients, the anticoagulant therapeutic regimen was associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality risk (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.60; I ²: 58%) compared with the prophylactic one. However, the former was also associated with a higher risk of bleeding (RR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.60-4.00; I ²: 65%). Anticoagulant use, mainly heparin, reduced all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients during hospitalization. Due to the higher risk of bleeding at therapeutic doses, the use of prophylactic dosages of anticoagulant is probably to be preferred in noncritically ill COVID-19 patients.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Prescription Appropriateness at Hospital Discharge: Experience with COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are often elderly, with comorbidities, and receiving polypharmacy, all of which are known factors for potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of DDIs and PIMs in COVID-19 patients at hospital discharge.

METHOD

Patients with a proven diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who were hospitalized between 21 February and 30 April 2020, treated with at least two drugs, and with available information regarding pharmacological treatments upon admission and at discharge were considered. The appropriateness of drug prescriptions was assessed using INTERcheck®.

RESULTS

A significant increase in the prescription of proton pump inhibitors and heparins was found when comparing admission with hospital discharge (from 24 to 33% [p < 0.05] and from 1 to 17% [p < 0.01], respectively). The increased prescription of heparins at discharge resulted in a highly significant increase in the potentially severe DDIs mediated by this class of drugs. 51% of COVID-19 patients aged > 65 years had at least one PIM upon admission, with an insignificant increment at discharge (58%).

CONCLUSION

An increased number of prescribed drugs was observed in COVID-19 patients discharged from our hospital. The addition of heparins is appropriate according to the current literature, while the use of proton pump inhibitors is more controversial. Particular attention should be paid to the risk of bleeding complications linked to heparin-based DDIs.