Anticoagulation Before Hospitalization Is a Potential Protective Factor for COVID-19: Insight From a French Multicenter Cohort Study

Impact of prior oral anticoagulation therapies on post-discharge outcomes after COVID-19: Results from a global federated health network analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of chronic oral anticoagulant (OACs) use on long-term post-discharge outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalisation remains unclear. Herein, we compared clinical outcomes up to 2-years after COVID-19 hospitalisation between patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct-acting OACs (DOACs) and no OAC therapy.

METHODS

Data from TriNetX, a global federated health research network, were used. Adult patients on VKAs, DOACs or no OAC therapy at diagnosis of COVID-19 between 20 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, who were hospitalised for COVID-19, were included. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/systemic embolism (SE) and the composite of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH)/gastrointestinal bleeding, at 2 years after COVID-19 hospitalisation.

RESULTS

We included 110,834 patients with COVID-19. Following propensity score matching (PSM), we identified a decreased mortality risk in DOAC-treated patients compared to the no OAC cohort (RR .808, 95% CI .751-.870). A higher risk of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE was observed in VKA users compared to DOAC users (RR 1.100, 95% CI 1.020-1.220) and in VKA users compared to patients not taking OAC (RR 1.400, 95% CI 1.140-1.720). VKA use was associated with a greater risk of ICH/gastrointestinal bleeding than DOAC users (RR 1.198, 95% CI 1.066-1.347), while DOAC users had a lower risk compared to no OAC-treated patients (RR .840, 95% CI .754-.936).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 patients taking prior DOACs were associated with lower long-term mortality risk and ICH/gastrointestinal bleeding than patients not taking OAC. Compared to patients on DOACs, VKA users were associated with higher risks of mortality, ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE and ICH/gastrointestinal bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease

Background

Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited.

Objectives

To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated.

Results

Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001).

Conclusions

Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Dicoumarol is an effective post-exposure prophylactic for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in human airway epithelium

Repurposing existing drugs to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in airway epithelial cells (AECs) is a quick way to find novel treatments for COVID-19. Computational screening has found dicoumarol (DCM), a natural anticoagulant, to be a potential SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor, but its inhibitory effects and possible working mechanisms remain unknown. Using air-liquid interface culture of primary human AECs, we demonstrated that DCM has potent antiviral activity against the infection of multiple Omicron variants (including BA.1, BQ.1 and XBB.1). Time-of-addition and drug withdrawal assays revealed that early treatment (continuously incubated after viral absorption) of DCM could markedly inhibit Omicron replication in AECs, but DCM did not affect the absorption, exocytosis and spread of viruses or directly eliminate viruses. Mechanistically, we performed single-cell sequencing analysis (a database of 77,969 cells from different airway locations from 10 healthy volunteers) and immunofluorescence staining, and showed that the expression of NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), one of the known DCM targets, was predominantly localised in ciliated AECs. We further found that the NQO1 expression level was positively correlated with both the disease severity of COVID-19 patients and virus copy levels in cultured AECs. In addition, DCM treatment downregulated NQO1 expression and disrupted signalling pathways associated with SARS-CoV-2 disease outcomes (e.g., Endocytosis and COVID-19 signalling pathways) in cultured AECs. Collectively, we demonstrated that DCM is an effective post-exposure prophylactic for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the human AECs, and these findings could help physicians formulate novel treatment strategies for COVID-19.

COVID-19 associated coagulopathy: A bibliometric investigation

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 initiates an immune-hemostatic response. While both systems are intimately connected and necessary for an efficient immune response to contain the infection, excessive coagulation activation might exceed the valuable benefits by causing thrombotic consequences and excessive inflammation. This biological response is new to clinicians and researchers, and accordingly, tremendous studies have been conducted on coagulopathy and its relationship to COVID-19 disease during this pandemic. Therefore, it takes a research insight from a bibliometric perspective to determine research hotspots and trends of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (C19-CA). The analysis relies on the Scopus database for bibliographic content and Visualization of Similarities viewer software to map bibliometric data of C19-CA. Our study finds the most eminent authors, journals, institutions, funding organizations, and countries that publish in the C19-CA. Additionally; this research employs bibliometric analysis of co-authorship, co-citations, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of keywords. A total of 2242 studies were retrieved, and the number of annual publications of C19-CA showed remarkable growth. The top-publishing authors on C19-CA are Smadja, D.M., Diehl, J.L., and Gendron, N (France). The total number of articles published in English in these three years was 1241, with the original article accounting for 99.8% and conference papers accounting for 0.2%. Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China) is the top-productive institution, with the US being the top-publishing country. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis received the highest number of original articles. The research results were mainly published in the fields of Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, Immunology and Microbiology. Yuanyuan Li, who is (China), is the top-collaborating author. China and its authors have the highest number of citations. Keywords' co-occurrence analyses of the authors and all keywords revealed the following themes in C19-CA; abnormal coagulation parameters, pulmonary coagulopathy, venous and arterial thrombotic disorders, distinct features of coagulopathy, inflammation, and thrombosis in COVID-19, and anticoagulants and thrombolytic therapies. By combining bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer software, we identified C19-CA's leaders, collaborating institutions, and research hotspots, as well as give references for future research paths.

Association of Cardiovascular Medications With Adverse Outcomes in a Matched Analysis of a National Cohort of Patients With COVID-19

Background

The use of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and anticoagulants may be associated with fewer adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Nested within a cohort of 800,913 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and June 24, 2021 from the Optum COVID-19 database, three case-control studies were conducted. Cases-defined as persons who: (1) were hospitalized within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (n = 88,405); (2) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)/received mechanical ventilation during COVID-19 hospitalization (n = 22,147); and (3) died during COVID-19 hospitalization (n = 2300)-were matched 1:1 using demographic/clinical factors with controls randomly selected from a pool of patients who did not experience the case definition/event. Medication use was based on prescription ≤90 days before COVID-19 diagnosis.

Results

Statin use was associated with decreased risk of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.69, 0.75) and ICU admission/mechanical ventilation (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84, 0.97). ACEI/ARB use was associated with decreased risk of hospitalization (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65, 0.70), ICU admission/mechanical ventilation (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86, 0.99), and death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.78). Anticoagulant use was associated with decreased risk of hospitalization (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89, 0.99) and death (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.77). Interaction effects-in the model predicting hospitalization-were statistically significant for statins and ACEI/ARBs (P < .0001), statins and anticoagulants (P = .003), ACEI/ARBs and anticoagulants (P < .0001). An interaction effect-in the model predicting ventilator use/ICU-was statistically significant for statins and ACEI/ARBs (P = .002).

Conclusions

Statins, ACEI/ARBs, and anticoagulants were associated with decreased risks of the adverse outcomes under study. These findings may provide clinically relevant information regarding potential treatment for patients with COVID-19.

Treatment with prophylactic oral anticoagulants and the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients: a nationwide cohort study

Background

Venous thromboembolism has been reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It remains unclear if premorbid use of prophylactic oral anticoagulation, for reasons other than COVID-19, protects against death in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to estimate if the risk of all-cause mortality, hospital admission or intensive care unit (ICU) admission for individuals with verified SARS-CoV-2 was lower if patients used oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy prior to a positive COVID-19 status.

Methods

Data were obtained using national health registries. Cohort entry was the day of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and individuals were followed for 14 days or until death or hospital admission. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard regressions and competing risk analyses were used to estimate the risk of all-cause mortality, hospital admission and ICU admission in OAC users compared with patients with no use of OAC.

Results

In this nationwide cohort study a total of 244 522 individuals were included (median age 35 years (interquartile range 21-52); 124 095 (51%) female), among whom 3710 (1.5%) were OAC users. In the adjusted Cox regression cohort, there was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality in OAC versus non-OAC users. (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Hospital admission risk (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20) was slightly increased in OAC users, and there was no difference between the groups regarding the risk of ICU admission (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.24).

Conclusions

In individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, pre-existing treatment with OAC was not associated with prophylactic benefits in the prevention of hospital admission, ICU admissions or death. Prescription patterns should remain unchanged.

Effect of Previous Anticoagulant Treatment on Risk of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the role played by anticoagulants in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of previous anticoagulant treatment on risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, progression to severe COVID-19 and susceptibility to COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

We conducted a multiple population-based case-control study in northwest Spain, in 2020, to assess (1) risk of hospitalization: cases were all patients admitted due to COVID-19 with PCR confirmation, and controls were a random matched sample of subjects without a positive PCR; (2) progression: cases were hospitalized COVID-19 subjects, and controls were all non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and (3) susceptibility: cases were patients with a positive PCR (hospitalized and non-hospitalized), and the controls were the same as for the hospitalization model. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

The consumption of antivitamin K and direct-acting anticoagulants apparently was not associated with the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.74-1.17] and OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.79-1.36], respectively). Antivitamin K anticoagulants were associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.93]), which, in part, can be explained by a decreased risk of susceptibility to infection (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.92]). The use of direct-acting anticoagulants was not associated with the risk of hospitalization, although it also seems to decrease susceptibility (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.98]). It has also been observed that low-molecular-weight heparins were associated with an increased risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.55]).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study have shown that antivitamin K anticoagulants and direct-acting anticoagulants do not increase the risk of progression to more severe stages. Antivitamin K consumption was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and susceptibility to infection.

Platelet activation and coronavirus disease 2019 mortality: Insights from coagulopathy, antiplatelet therapy and inflammation

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an inflammatory cytokine burst and a prothrombotic coagulopathy. Platelets may contribute to microthrombosis, and constitute a therapeutic target in COVID-19 therapy.

AIM

To assess if platelet activation influences mortality in COVID-19.

METHODS

We explored two cohorts of patients with COVID-19. Cohort A included 208 ambulatory and hospitalized patients with varying clinical severities and non-COVID patients as controls, in whom plasma concentrations of the soluble platelet activation biomarkers CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and P-selectin (sP-sel) were quantified within the first 48hours following hospitalization. Cohort B was a multicentre cohort of 2878 patients initially admitted to a medical ward. In both cohorts, the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

In cohort A, median circulating concentrations of sCD40L and sP-sel were only increased in the 89 critical patients compared with non-COVID controls: sP-sel 40,059 (interquartile range 26,876-54,678)pg/mL; sCD40L 1914 (interquartile range 1410-2367)pg/mL (P<0.001 for both). A strong association existed between sP-sel concentration and in-hospital mortality (Kaplan-Meier log-rank P=0.004). However, in a Cox model considering biomarkers of immunothrombosis, sP-sel was no longer associated with mortality, in contrast to coagulopathy evaluated with D-dimer concentration (hazard ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.64-12.50). Moreover, in cohort B, a Cox model adjusted for co-morbidities suggested that prehospitalization antiplatelet agents had no significant impact on in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.80-1.37; P=0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Although we observed an association between excessive biomarkers of platelet activation and in-hospital mortality, our findings rather suggest that coagulopathy is more central in driving disease progression, which may explain why prehospitalization antiplatelet drugs were not a protective factor against mortality in our multicentre cohort.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Thrombosis of Medium-Sized and Large Arteries During Covid-19 Infection: Results of the COVIVASC Study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 infection is associated not only with venous thromboses but also with arterial thromboses (COV-ATs) in relation with an endothelial dysfunction, a coagulopathy and rhythm disorders. The incidence, the topography, and the prognosis of COV-ATs remain poorly known. The objective of this study was to report the overall experience of the Greater Paris University Hospitals (Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, AP-HP) during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

After approval by the ethics committee, a study using the AP-HP clinical data warehouse was carried out between March and May 2020. Overall, 124,609 patients had a polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19 in our hospitals, of which 25,345 were positive. From 20,710 exploitable stays, patients tested positive for COVID who presented an episode of acute COV-AT (except coronary and intracranial arteries) were selected on the basis of the French medical classification for clinical procedures codes. The data are presented as absolute values with percentages and/or means with standard deviation.

RESULTS

Over the studied period, 60 patients (aged 71±14 years, 42 men) presented a COV-AT at the time of their hospitalization, an incidence of 0.2%. The arterial complication occurred 3±7 days after the COVID infection and was inaugural in 30% of the cases (n = 18). The sites of COV-AT were the lower extremities (n = 35%, 58%), the abdominal aorta (n = 10%, 17%), the thoracic aorta (n = 7%, 12%), the upper limbs (n = 7%, 12%), the cerebral arteries (n = 7%, 12%), the digestive arteries (n = 6%, 10%), the renal arteries (n = 2%, 3%), and the ophthalmic artery (n = 1%, 2%). Multiple COV-ATs were observed in 13 patients (22%). At the time of diagnosis, 20 (33%) patients were in intensive care, including six (10%) patients who were intubated. On computed tomography angiography, COVID lesions were classified as moderate and severe in 25 (42%) and 21 (35%) cases, respectively. Revascularization was attempted in 27 patients (45%), by open surgery in 16 cases, using endovascular techniques in 8 cases and with a hybrid approach in three cases. Six patients (22%) required reinterventions. The duration of hospitalization was 12±9 days. Early mortality (in-hospital or at 30 days) was 30% (n = 18). Nine (15%) patients presented severe nonlethal ischemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Arterial involvement is rare during COVID-19 infection. The aorta and the arteries of the limbs are the privileged sites. The morbi-mortality of these patients is high. Future studies will have to determine if the systematization of anticoagulation therapy decreases the incidence and the severity of the condition.

D-dimer, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, and creatinine are reliable decision-making biomarkers in life-sustaining therapies withholding and withdrawing during COVID-19 outbreak

Background

The decision for withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in COVID-19 patients is currently based on a collegial and mainly clinical assessment. In the context of a global pandemic and overwhelmed health system, the question of LST decision support for COVID-19 patients using prognostic biomarkers arises.

Methods

In a multicenter study in 24 French hospitals, 2878 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical departments from 26 February to 20 April 2020 were included. In a propensity-matched population, we compared the clinical, biological, and management characteristics and survival of patients with and without LST decision using Student's t-test, the chi-square test, and the Cox model, respectively.

Results

An LST was decided for 591 COVID-19 patients (20.5%). These 591 patients with LST decision were secondarily matched (1:1) based on age, sex, body mass index, and cancer history with 591 COVID-19 patients with no LST decision. The patients with LST decision had significantly more cardiovascular diseases, such as high blood pressure (72.9 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.02), stroke (19.3 vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001), renal failure (30.4 vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001), and heart disease (22.5 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001). Upon admission, LST patients were more severely attested by a qSOFA score ≥2 (66.5 vs. 58.8%, p = 0.03). Biologically, LST patients had significantly higher values of D-dimer, markers of heart failure (BNP and NT-pro-BNP), and renal damage (creatinine) (p < 0.001). Their evolutions were more often unfavorable (in-hospital mortality) than patients with no LST decision (41.5 vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). By combining the three biomarkers (D-dimer, BNP and/or NT-proBNP, and creatinine), the proportion of LST increased significantly with the number of abnormally high biomarkers (24, 41.3, 48.3, and 60%, respectively, for none, one, two, and three high values of biomarkers, trend p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The concomitant increase in D-dimer, BNP/NT-proBNP, and creatinine during the admission of a COVID-19 patient could represent a reliable and helpful tool for LST decision. Circulating biomarker might potentially provide additional information for LST decision in COVID-19.

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.

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.

Critical Influenza and COVID-19-A Comparative Nationwide Case-Control Study

Refined knowledge of risk factors for critical influenza and COVID-19 may lead to improved understanding of pathophysiology and better pandemic preparedness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare risk-factor profiles of patients admitted to intensive care with critical influenza and COVID-19.

DESIGN SETTING AND PATIENTS

A nationwide retrospective matched case-control study, including all adults admitted to an ICU in Sweden with influenza or COVID-19 between 2014 and September 2020 and a matched control population (ratio 1:5, patients:controls).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Admission to an ICU. The study included 1,873 influenza and 2,567 COVID-19 ICU patients, and 9,365 and 12,835 controls, respectively, matched on sex, age, and geographical region. Influenza patients were older and less likely male, and carried a larger burden of comorbidity and a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score III score, whereas short-term mortalities were similar when compared to COVID-19 patients. The risk-factor profiles at ICU admission were largely comparable including socioeconomic, psychiatric, and several somatic variables. Hypertension was a strong risk factor in critical COVID-19 patients compared with influenza. Nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy was associated with critical influenza but not COVID-19. Premorbid medication with statins and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors reduced the risk for both conditions, the opposite was a seen for glucocorticoid medication. Notably, medication with betablockers, oral anticoagulation, and platelet inhibitors reduced the risk of critical COVID-19 but not influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk-factor profiles for critical influenza and COVID-19 were largely comparable; however, some important differences were noted. Hypertension was a stronger risk factor for developing critical COVID-19, whereas the use of betablockers, oral anticoagulants, and platelet inhibitors all reduced the risk of ICU admission for COVID-19 but not influenza. Findings possibly reflected differences in pathophysiological mechanisms between these conditions.

Persistent Lung Injury and Prothrombotic State in Long COVID

Lung injury may persist during the recovery period of COVID-19 as shown through imaging, six-minute walk, and lung function tests. The pathophysiological mechanisms leading to long COVID have not been adequately explained. Our aim is to investigate the basis of pulmonary susceptibility during sequelae and the possibility that prothrombotic states may influence long-term pulmonary symptoms of COVID-19. The patient’s lungs remain vulnerable during the recovery stage due to persistent shedding of the virus, the inflammatory environment, the prothrombotic state, and injury and subsequent repair of the blood-air barrier. The transformation of inflammation to proliferation and fibrosis, hypoxia-involved vascular remodeling, vascular endothelial cell damage, phosphatidylserine-involved hypercoagulability, and continuous changes in serological markers all contribute to post-discharge lung injury. Considering the important role of microthrombus and arteriovenous thrombus in the process of pulmonary functional lesions to organic lesions, we further study the possibility that prothrombotic states, including pulmonary vascular endothelial cell activation and hypercoagulability, may affect long-term pulmonary symptoms in long COVID. Early use of combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy is a promising approach to reduce the incidence of pulmonary sequelae. Essentially, early treatment can block the occurrence of thrombotic events. Because impeded pulmonary circulation causes large pressure imbalances over the alveolar membrane leading to the infiltration of plasma into the alveolar cavity, inhibition of thrombotic events can prevent pulmonary hypertension, formation of lung hyaline membranes, and lung consolidation.

The Use of Oral Anticoagulation Is Not Associated With a Reduced Risk of Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Background: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolic events are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Whether chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improve the prognosis is yet controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the association between the chronic OAC and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify studies that evaluated OAC for COVID-19 until 24 July 2021. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to pool the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. According to the type of oral anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)], subgroup and interaction analyses were performed to compare DOACs and VKAs. Meta-regression was performed to explore the potential confounders on all-cause mortality.

Results: A total of 12 studies involving 30,646 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results confirmed that chronic OAC did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.82–1.03; p = 0.165) or ICU admission (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.40–1.04; p = 0.073) in patients with COVID-19 compared to those without OAC. The chronic use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to VKAs (P_interaction = 0.497) in subgroup and interaction analyses. The meta-regression failed to detect any potential confounding on all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with chronic OAC were not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and ICU admission compared to those without OAC, and the results were consistent across DOACs and VKA subgroups.

Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42021269764.

Efficacy of different anticoagulant doses for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number and registration dates

Supplementary Information

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.

Do Admitted COVID-19-Positive Patients on Anticoagulation Therapy Have a Reduced Hospital Stay and Disease Severity?

Background

As of December 2021, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the deaths of over 5 million people. It is known that infection with this virus causes a state of hypercoagulability. Because of this, there has been considerable debate on whether or not patients should be placed on anticoagulation prophylaxis/therapy. The goal of our project was to shed light on this topic by examining the effects of preexisting anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on disease severity (measured by blood clot readmissions, transfusion counts, and length of hospital stay). In this retrospective cohort study, we conducted an analysis based on data from 30,076 COVID-19-positive patients’ electronic medical records.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients included in this study were identified from the HCA Healthcare corporate database. Registry data was sourced from HCA East Florida hospitals. All patients included in this study were COVID-19 positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or rapid antigen testing on admission and over age 18. A total of 30,076 patients were included in this study with hospital admission dates from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. The analysis examined the relationship between age, sex, blood clot history, and most importantly current anticoagulation status on COVID-19 disease severity (through blood clot readmissions, length of stay, and transfusion count). Blood clot readmissions were analyzed with a logistic regression model while the length of hospital stay and transfusion count were analyzed with a linear regression model.

Results

Our analysis revealed that the odds of experiencing a blood clot readmission is 2.017 times more likely in patients already on anticoagulation therapy compared to those who were not (p = 0.0024). We also found that patients on anticoagulation therapy had a hospital stay of 6.90 days longer on average than patients not on anticoagulation therapy (p < 0.0001). Finally, patients on anticoagulation therapy had, on average, 0.20 more blood transfusions than patients not on anticoagulation therapy (p < 0.001). 

Conclusion

While these findings may be affected by the underlying conditions of those on preexisting anticoagulation therapy, they provide valuable insight into the debate on whether COVID-19-positive patients should be anticoagulated on admission to a hospital.

The association between anticoagulation and adverse outcomes after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among older outpatients: A population-based cohort study

Introduction

Anticoagulation may improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 when started early in the course of illness.

Materials and methods

This was a population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets of outpatients aged ≥65 years old testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1 and December 31, 2020 in Ontario, Canada. The key exposure was anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants before COVID-19 diagnosis. We calculated propensity scores and used matching weights (MWs) to reduce baseline differences between anticoagulated and non-anticoagulated patients. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization within 60 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and cumulative incidence functions to estimate risk of the primary and component outcomes at 60 days.

Results

We studied 23,159 outpatients (mean age 78.5 years; 13,474 [58.2%] female), among whom 3200 (13.8%) deaths and 3183 (13.7%) hospitalizations occurred within 60 days of the SARS-CoV-2 test. After application of MWs, the 60-day risk of death or hospitalization was 29.2% (95% CI 27.4%–31.2%) for anticoagulated individuals and 32.1% (95% CI 30.7%–33.5%) without anticoagulation (absolute risk difference [ARD], −2.9%; p = 0.005). Anticoagulation was also associated with a lower risk of death: 18.6% (95% CI 17.0%–20.2%) with anticoagulation and 20.9% (95% CI 19.7%–22.2%) in non-anticoagulated patients (ARD -2.3%; p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Among outpatients aged ≥65 years, oral anticoagulation at the time of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death or hospitalization within 60 days.

Pathomechanisms and Treatment Implications for Stroke in COVID-19: A Review of the Literature

Stroke in patients with COVID-19 has received increasing attention throughout the global COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps due to the substantial disability and mortality that can result when the two conditions co-occur. We reviewed the existing literature and found that the proposed pathomechanism underlying COVID-19-associated ischemic stroke is broadly divided into the following three categories: vasculitis, endothelialitis, and endothelial dysfunction; hypercoagulable state; and cardioembolism secondary to cardiac dysfunction. There has been substantial debate as to whether there is a causal link between stroke and COVID-19. However, the distinct phenotype of COVID-19-associated strokes, with multivessel territory infarcts, higher proportion of large vessel occlusions, and cryptogenic stroke mechanism, that emerged in pooled analytic comparisons with non-COVID-19 strokes is compelling. Further, in this article, we review the various treatment approaches that have emerged as they relate to the proposed pathomechanisms. Finally, we briefly cover the logistical challenges, such as delays in treatment, faced by providers and health systems; the innovative approaches utilized, including the role of tele-stroke; and the future directions in COVID-19-associated stroke research and healthcare delivery.

Clinical outcomes and the impact of prior oral anticoagulant use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to hospitals in the UK - a multicentre observational study

Coagulation dysfunction and thrombosis are major complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) prior to diagnosis of COVID-19 may therefore have better outcomes. In this multicentre observational study of 5 883 patients (≥18 years) admitted to 26 UK hospitals between 1 April 2020 and 31 July 2020, overall mortality was 29·2%. Incidences of thrombosis, major bleeding (MB) and multiorgan failure (MOF) were 5·4%, 1·7% and 3·3% respectively. The presence of thrombosis, MB, or MOF was associated with a 1·8, 4·5 or 5·9-fold increased risk of dying, respectively. Of the 5 883 patients studied, 83·6% (n = 4 920) were not on OAC and 16·4% (n = 963) were taking OAC at the time of admission. There was no difference in mortality between patients on OAC vs no OAC prior to admission when compared in an adjusted multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1·05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·93-1·19; P = 0·15] or in an adjusted propensity score analysis (HR 0·92 95% CI 0·58-1·450; P = 0·18). In multivariate and adjusted propensity score analyses, the only significant association of no anticoagulation prior to diagnosis of COVID-19 was admission to the Intensive-Care Unit (ICU) (HR 1·98, 95% CI 1·37-2·85). Thrombosis, MB, and MOF were associated with higher mortality. Our results indicate that patients may have benefit from prior OAC use, especially reduced admission to ICU, without any increase in bleeding.

The effect of oral anticoagulant use before visit for patients with COVID-19 on mortality: A meta-analysis

Objectives

Anticoagulants have been used as therapeutic or prophylactic agents in COVID-19 and seem to be more beneficial. However, the advantage of oral anticoagulant (OAC) consumption before visit in lowering mortality in COVID-19 patients remains debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of OAC use before visit on mortality using the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the effect of time-to-event endpoints.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a literature search in the PubMed and ProQuest databases for any studies comparing groups consuming OAC to no-OAC before visit for mortality in patients with COVID-19. We calculated the overall HRs and their variances across the studies using the random-effects model to obtain pooled estimates.

Results

We included 12 studies which had sample sizes ranging from 70 to 459,402 patients. A meta-analysis comparing OAC therapy and non-OAC consumption in COVID-19 patients before visit revealed no decrease in all-cause mortality (HR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-1.02, P = 0.12; I2 = 68%). However, subgroup analysis of laboratory-confirmed populations revealed that OAC use before visit had a beneficial effect on mortality (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, P = 0.02; I2 = 56%).

Conclusion

The use of OAC before visit had no beneficial effect on all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19: a review of current literature and guidelines

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections are associated with greater risk of both arterial and venous thromboembolic events.Pathophysiology and Clinical implications: This has been attributed to a florid proinflammatory state resulting in microvascular dysfunction, activation of platelets and procoagulant systems as well as possible direct endothelial injury. The associated morbidity and mortality of these events has prompted much speculation and varied anticoagulation and fibrinolytic strategies based on multiple criteria including disease severity and biomarkers. No clear definitive benefit has been established with these approaches, which have frequently led to greater bleeding complications without significant mortality benefit.Overview: In this review, we outline the burden of these thromboembolic events in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) as well as the hypothesized contributory biological mechanisms. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the major clinical studies on the topic, and end with a summary of major societal guideline recommendations on anticoagulation in COVID-19.

Outpatient and inpatient anticoagulation therapy and the risk for hospital admission and death among COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Limited data exist informing the relationship between anticoagulation therapy and risk for COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients over the age of 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 in a prospective cohort study from March 4th to August 27th, 2020 among 12 hospitals and 60 clinics of M Health Fairview system (USA). We investigated the relationship between (1) 90-day anticoagulation therapy among outpatients before COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk for hospitalization and mortality and (2) Inpatient anticoagulation therapy and mortality risk.

FINDINGS

Of 6195 patients, 598 were immediately hospitalized and 5597 were treated as outpatients. The overall case-fatality rate was 2•8% (n = 175 deaths). Among the patients who were hospitalized, the inpatient mortality was 13%. Among the 5597 COVID-19 patients initially treated as outpatients, 160 (2.9%) were on anticoagulation and 331 were eventually hospitalized (5.9%). In a multivariable analysis, outpatient anticoagulation use was associated with a 43% reduction in risk for hospital admission, HR (95% CI = 0.57, 0.38-0.86), p = 0.007, but was not associated with mortality, HR (95% CI=0.88, 0.50 - 1.52), p = 0.64. Inpatients who were not on anticoagulation (before or after hospitalization) had an increased risk for mortality, HR (95% CI = 2.26, 1.17-4.37), p = 0.015.

INTERPRETATION

Outpatients with COVID-19 who were on outpatient anticoagulation at the time of diagnosis experienced a 43% reduced risk of hospitalization. Failure to initiate anticoagulation upon hospitalization or maintaining outpatient anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was associated with increased mortality risk.

FUNDING

No funding was obtained for this study.

Intermediate- vs. Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted in Medical Ward: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Background: Microthrombosis and large-vessel thrombosis are the main triggers of COVID-19 worsening. The optimal anticoagulant regimen in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards remains unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (AC) among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards. Methods and results: We used a large French multicentric retrospective study enrolling 2,878 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards. After exclusion of patients who had an AC treatment before hospitalization, we generated a propensity-score-matched cohort of patients who were treated with intermediate-dose or standard-dose prophylactic AC between February 26 and April 20, 2020 (intermediate-dose, n = 261; standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, n = 763). The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality; this occurred in 23 of 261 (8.8%) patients in the intermediate-dose group and 74 of 783 (9.4%) patients in the standard-dose prophylactic AC group (p = 0.85); while time to death was also the same in both the treatment groups (11.5 and 11.6 days, respectively, p = 0.17). We did not observe any difference regarding venous and arterial thrombotic events between the intermediate dose and standard dose, respectively (venous thrombotic events: 2.3 vs. 2.4%, p=0.99; arterial thrombotic events: 2.7 vs. 1.2%, p = 0.25). The 30-day Kaplan-Meier curves for in-hospital mortality demonstrate no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.99 (0.63-1.60); p = 0.99). Moreover, we found that no particular subgroup was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards, intermediate-dose prophylactic AC compared with standard-dose prophylactic AC did not result in a significant difference in in-hospital mortality.

Combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy is associated with an improved outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a propensity matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that results in a prothrombotic state manifesting as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. As a result, several antithrombotic modalities have been implicated in the treatment of this disease. This study aimed to identify if therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC) or concurrent use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants was associated with an improved outcome in this patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to a single university hospital for COVID-19 infection was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or the need for mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcomes were each of the components of the primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, or the need for mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

242 patients were included in the study and divided into four subgroups: Therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC), prophylactic anticoagulation+antiplatelet (PACAP), TAC+antiplatelet (TACAP) and prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) which was the reference for comparison. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and propensity matching were done and showed when compared with PAC, TACAP and TAC were associated with less in-hospital all-cause mortality with an adjusted HR (aHR) of 0.113 (95% CI 0.028 to 0.449) and 0.126 (95% CI 0.028 to 0.528), respectively. The number needed to treat in both subgroups was 11. Furthermore, PACAP was associated with a reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation with an aHR of 0.07 (95% CI 0.014 to 0.351). However, the was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of major or minor bleeds, ICU admission or the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, ICU admission or the need for mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSION

The use of combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents or TAC alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was associated with a better outcome in comparison to PAC alone without an increase in the risk of major and minor bleeds. Sufficiently powered randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining antiplatelet and anticoagulants agents or using TAC in the management of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Concern About the Adverse Effects of Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis After Adenovirus-Vectored COVID-19 Vaccination

Since the outbreak of Covid-19 in December, 2019, scientists worldwide have been committed to developing COVID-19 vaccines. Only when most people have immunity to SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 can reduce even wholly overcome. So far, nine kinds of COVID-19 vaccines have passed the phase III clinical trials and have approved for use. At the same time, adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have also reported. This paper focuses on the adverse effects of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia caused by the COVID-19 vaccine, especially the adenovirus-vector vaccine from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, and discusses its mechanism and possible countermeasures.

Deterioration of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia treated by heparin and platelet transfusion: Insight from functional cytometry and serotonin release assay

We report a case of a 62-year-old man who developed cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with subarachnoid hemorrhage and concomitant thrombocytopenia, which occurred 13 days after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 injection. The patient died in the intensive care unit after heparin infusion and platelet transfusion. The key clinical purpose of this case report is to better understand how to confirm vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). VITT diagnosis was made using 14C-serotonin release and flow cytometry evaluating activation and platelet microvesicles on washed platelets. Four control patients were examined: a patient with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), two patients with thrombotic events without thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2, and a patient with suspected HIT and an excluded diagnosis. We evidenced in the VITT case a high level of IgG anti-platelet factor 4-heparin antibodies associated with a high level of platelet activation in the absence of heparin. Conversely, the functional assays were negative in the patients with thrombosis without thrombocytopenia.

Does chronic oral anticoagulation reduce in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 older patients?

Background

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of venous thromboembolism.

Aims

To evaluate the effect of chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, both with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), on prognosis of COVID-19 older patients.

Methods

Single-center prospective study conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of a teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We evaluated all the patients ≥ 65 years, consecutively admitted to our ED for confirmed COVID-19. We compared the clinical outcome of those who were on chronic OAC at ED admission with those who did not, using a propensity score matched paired cohort of controls. The primary study endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. Patients were matched for age, sex, clinical comorbidities, and clinical severity at presentation (based on NEWS ≥ 6). Study parameters were assessed for association to all-cause in-hospital death by a multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify independent risk factor for survival.

Results

Although overall mortality was slightly higher for anticoagulated patients compared to controls (63.3% vs 43.5%, p = 0.012), the multivariate adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was not significant (HR = 1.56 [0.78–3.12]; p = 0.208). Both DOACs (HR 1.46 [0.73–2.92]; p = 0.283) and VKAs (HR 1.14 [0.48–2.73]; p = 0.761) alone did not affect overall survival in our cohort.

Conclusions

Among older patients hospitalized for COVID-19, chronic OAC therapy was not associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, our data suggest similar outcome both for patients on VKAs or in patients on DOACs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40520-021-01924-w.

Pulmonary embolism severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Early in the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a high frequency of pulmonary embolism was identified. This audit aims to assess the frequency and severity of pulmonary embolism in 2020 compared to 2019.

METHODS

In this retrospective audit, we compared computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) frequency and pulmonary embolism severity in April and May 2020, compared to 2019. Pulmonary embolism severity was assessed with the Modified Miller score and the presence of right heart strain was assessed. Demographic information and 30-day mortality was identified from electronic health records.

RESULTS

In April 2020, there was a 17% reduction in the number of CTPA performed and an increase in the proportion identifying pulmonary embolism (26%, n = 68/265 vs 15%, n = 47/320, p < 0.001), compared to April 2019. Patients with pulmonary embolism in 2020 had more comorbidities (p = 0.026), but similar age and sex compared to 2019. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism severity in 2020 compared to 2019, but there was an increased frequency of right heart strain in May 2020 (29 vs 12%, p = 0.029). Amongst 18 patients with COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism, there was a larger proportion of males and an increased 30 day mortality (28% vs 6%, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a reduction in the number of CTPA scans performed and an increase in the frequency of CTPA scans positive for pulmonary embolism. Patients with both COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism had an increased risk of 30-day mortality compared to those without COVID-19.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of CTPA performed decreased and the proportion of positive CTPA increased. Patients with both pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 had worse outcomes compared to those with pulmonary embolism alone.

Vaccination against COVID-19: insight from arterial and venous thrombosis occurrence using data from VigiBase

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic phenotype characterised by coagulopathy and endothelial dysfunction [1–4]. Following some cases of thrombosis after vaccination, the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) was temporarily suspended by some European countries. The European Medicines Agency concluded that the benefits of the vaccine in combating the COVID-19 outbreak continue to outweigh the risk of side-effects. On 19 March, 2021, Germany reported 13 cases of sinus or cerebral vein thrombosis, with more than 1.6 million AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine doses administered. Some of these patients also had a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)-like syndrome, which suggests an immunological event as one of the potential origins of thrombosis.

This study observed an imbalance between venous and arterial thrombotic events in mRNA vaccines while with AZ1222 they are evenly shared. Our analysis highlights cerebral vein thrombosis with the three vaccines.https://bit.ly/3mZqguE

Widespread Parenchymal Abnormalities and Pulmonary Embolism on Contrast-Enhanced CT Predict Disease Severity and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Purpose: Severe COVID-19 is associated with inflammation, thromboembolic disease, and high mortality. We studied factors associated with fatal outcomes in consecutive COVID-19 patients examined by computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

Methods: This retrospective, single-center cohort analysis included 130 PCR-positive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 [35 women and 95 men, median age 57 years (interquartile range 51–64)] with suspected pulmonary embolism based on clinical suspicion. The presence and extent of embolism and parenchymal abnormalities on CTPA were recorded. The severity of pulmonary parenchymal involvement was stratified by two experienced radiologists into two groups: lesions affecting ≤50% or >50% of the parenchyma. Patient characteristics, radiological aspects, laboratory parameters, and 60-day mortality data were collected.

Results: Pulmonary embolism was present in 26% of the patients. Most emboli were small and peripheral. Patients with widespread parenchymal abnormalities, with or without pulmonary embolism, had increased main pulmonary artery diameter (p < 0.05) and higher C-reactive protein (p < 0.01), D-dimer (p < 0.01), and troponin T (p < 0.001) and lower hemoglobin (p < 0.001). A wider main pulmonary artery diameter correlated positively with C-reactive protein (r = 0.28, p = 0.001, and n = 130) and procalcitonin. In a multivariant analysis, D-dimer >7.2 mg/L [odds ratio (±95% confidence interval) 4.1 (1.4–12.0)] and ICU stay were significantly associated with embolism (p < 0.001). The highest 60-day mortality was found in patients with widespread parenchymal abnormalities combined with pulmonary embolism (36%), followed by patients with widespread parenchymal abnormalities without pulmonary embolism (26%). In multivariate analysis, high troponin T, D-dimer, and plasma creatinine and widespread parenchymal abnormalities on CT were associated with 60-day mortality.

Conclusions: Pulmonary embolism combined with widespread parenchymal abnormalities contributed to mortality risk in COVID-19. Elevated C-reactive protein, D-dimer, troponin-T, P-creatinine, and enlarged pulmonary artery were associated with a worse outcome and may mirror a more severe systemic disease. A liberal approach to radiological investigation should be recommended at clinical deterioration, when the situation allows it. Computed tomography imaging, even without intravenous contrast to assess the severity of pulmonary infiltrates, are of value to predict outcome in COVID-19. Better radiological techniques with higher resolution could potentially improve the detection of microthromboses. This could influence anticoagulant treatment strategies, preventing clinical detoriation.

COVID-19 is a systemic vascular hemopathy: insight for mechanistic and clinical aspects

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is presenting as a systemic disease associated with vascular inflammation and endothelial injury. Severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection induce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and there is still an ongoing debate on whether COVID-19 ARDS and its perfusion defect differs from ARDS induced by other causes. Beside pro-inflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-1 β [IL-1β] or IL-6), several main pathological phenomena have been seen because of endothelial cell (EC) dysfunction: hypercoagulation reflected by fibrin degradation products called D-dimers, micro- and macrothrombosis and pathological angiogenesis. Direct endothelial infection by SARS-CoV-2 is not likely to occur and ACE-2 expression by EC is a matter of debate. Indeed, endothelial damage reported in severely ill patients with COVID-19 could be more likely secondary to infection of neighboring cells and/or a consequence of inflammation. Endotheliopathy could give rise to hypercoagulation by alteration in the levels of different factors such as von Willebrand factor. Other than thrombotic events, pathological angiogenesis is among the recent findings. Overexpression of different proangiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2) or placental growth factors (PlGF) have been found in plasma or lung biopsies of COVID-19 patients. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 infection induces an emergency myelopoiesis associated to deregulated immunity and mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells, leading to features of acquired hematological malignancies or cardiovascular disease, which are discussed in this review. Altogether, this review will try to elucidate the pathophysiology of thrombotic complications, pathological angiogenesis and EC dysfunction, allowing better insight in new targets and antithrombotic protocols to better address vascular system dysfunction. Since treating SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential long-term effects involves targeting the vascular compartment and/or mobilization of immature immune cells, we propose to define COVID-19 and its complications as a systemic vascular acquired hemopathy.

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.

COVID-19 and Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients: Does Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Provide a Survival Benefit?-An Insight from the GeroCovid Registry

INTRODUCTION

 Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most frequent arrhythmia of older patients, associates with serious thromboembolic complications and high mortality. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severely affects aged subjects, determining an important prothrombotic status. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality-related factors in older AF patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

 Between March and June 2020, we enrolled ≥60 year-old in-hospital COVID-19 patients (n = 806) in GeroCovid, a multicenter observational study promoted by the Italian Society of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine.

RESULTS

 The prevalence of AF was 21.8%. In-hospital mortality was higher in the AF group (36.9 vs. 27.5%, p = 0.015). At admission, 51.7, 10.2, and 38.1% of AF cases were taking, respectively, oral anticoagulants (OACs), antiplatelet agents, and no antithrombotic therapy. During hospitalization, 51% patients switched to low-molecular-weight heparins. AF patients who survived were younger (81 ± 8 vs. 84 ± 7 years; p = 0.002) and had a lower CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (3.9 ± 1.6 vs. 4.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.02) than those who died. OAC use before (63.1 vs. 32.3%; p < 0.001) and during hospitalization (34.0 vs. 12.7%; p = 0.002) was higher among survivors. At multivariable analysis, lower age, higher self-sufficiency, less severe initial COVID-19 presentation, and the use of vitamin K antagonists (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.84) or direct OACs (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08-0.56) at admission, or the persistence of OAC during hospitalization (OR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.01-0.24), were associated with a lower chance of in-hospital death.

CONCLUSION

 AF is a prevalent and severe condition in older COVID-19 patients. Advanced age, dependency, and relevant clinical manifestations of disease characterized a worse prognosis. Preadmission and in-hospital anticoagulant therapies were positively associated with survival.

Prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation does not protect against COVID-19 related clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients: A propensity score-matched cohort study

The hypercoagulable state observed in COVID‐19 could be responsible for morbidity and mortality. In this retrospective study we investigated whether therapeutic anticoagulation prior to infection has a beneficial effect in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. This study included 1154 COVID‐19 patients admitted to 6 hospitals in the Netherlands between March and May 2020. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching to evaluate the association between prior therapeutic anticoagulation use and clinical outcome, with in hospital mortality as primary endpoint. In total, 190 (16%) patients used therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission. In the propensity score matched analyses, we observed no associations between prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation and overall mortality (risk ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval; 0.80–1.30]) or length of hospital stay (7.0 [4–12] vs. 7.0 [4–12] days, P = .69), although we observed a lower risk of pulmonary embolism (0.19 [0.05–0.80]). This study shows that prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation is not associated with improved clinical outcome in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients.

Anticoagulation Before Hospitalization Is a Potential Protective Factor for COVID-19: Insight From a French Multicenter Cohort Study

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a respiratory disease associated with thrombotic outcomes with coagulation and endothelial disorders. Based on that, several anticoagulation guidelines have been proposed. We aimed to determine whether anticoagulation therapy modifies the risk of developing severe COVID‐19.

Methods and Results

Patients with COVID‐19 initially admitted in medical wards of 24 French hospitals were included prospectively from February 26 to April 20, 2020. We used a Poisson regression model, Cox proportional hazard model, and matched propensity score to assess the effect of anticoagulation on outcomes (intensive care unit admission or in‐hospital mortality). The study enrolled 2878 patients with COVID‐19, among whom 382 (13.2%) were treated with oral anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization. After adjustment, anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55–0.88). Analyses performed using propensity score matching confirmed that anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29–0.63) for intensive care unit admission and adjusted hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61–0.98) for composite criteria intensive care unit admission or death. In contrast, therapeutic or prophylactic low‐ or high‐dose anticoagulation started during hospitalization were not associated with any of the outcomes.

Conclusions

Anticoagulation therapy used before hospitalization in medical wards was associated with a better prognosis in contrast with anticoagulation initiated during hospitalization. Anticoagulation therapy introduced in early disease could better prevent COVID‐19–associated coagulopathy and endotheliopathy, and lead to a better prognosis.