Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19: The ACTIV-4B Randomized Clinical Trial

The COVID-19 thrombus: distinguishing pathological, mechanistic, and phenotypic features and management

A heightened risk for thrombosis is a hallmark of COVID-19. Expansive clinical experience and medical literature have characterized small (micro) and large (macro) vessel involvement of the venous and arterial circulatory systems. Most events occur in patients with serious or critical illness in the hyperacute (first 1-2 weeks) or acute phases (2-4 weeks) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, thrombosis involving the venous, arterial, and microcirculatory systems has been reported in the subacute (4-8 weeks), convalescent (> 8-12 weeks) and chronic phases (> 12 weeks) among patients with mild-to-moderate illness. The purpose of the current focused review is to highlight the distinguishing clinical features, pathological components, and potential mechanisms of venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. The overarching objective is to better understand the proclivity for thrombosis, laying a solid foundation for screening and surveillance modalities, preventive strategies, and optimal patient management.

COVID-19 Coagulopathy

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is the respiratory viral infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite being a primary respiratory illness, it is commonly complicated by systemic involvement of the vasculature leading to arterial and venous thrombosis. In this review, we will focus on the association between COVID-19 and thrombosis. We will highlight the pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 vasculopathy will be discussed with a focus on venous and arterial thromboembolic events. COVID-19 vasculopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) are distinguished within, as well as areas of controversy, such as "long COVID". Finally, the current professional guidelines on prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection will be discussed.

Comparative analysis of COVID-19-associated venous thromboembolism outcomes: evolution from 2020 to 2021-2022

Patients with COVID-19 are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). With the advent of vaccinations and novel treatments from 2020 through 2022, the landscape of COVID-19 has evolved. Notably, the effects of such interventions on the outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE have not been thoroughly examined. Data from the RIETE registry were analyzed to evaluate 90-day VTE-related outcomes (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and VTE recurrences) in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE. We compared the periods before and after the widespread introduction of COVID-19 vaccines: March to December 2020 (pre-vaccine period) and March 2021 to December 2022 (post-vaccine period). Statistical analysis included mixed-effects parametric survival-time models. Among 1,620 patients with COVID-19-associated VTE, most (74.1%) were identified during 2020 period. The analysis revealed a more than two-fold increase in the risk of death within 90 days (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.18-4.38) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 2.91; 95%CI: 1.08-7.84) for patients from the 2020 period compared to those from the 2021-2022 period. Inpatient subgroup analysis confirmed the observed mortality differences. The frequency of recurrent VTE was low (1.1 vs. 0.7%, respectively), and did not show significant variation between the two periods. Our research provides a comparative perspective on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE before and after the introduction of vaccines. Our findings reveal a significant decrease in the incidence of 90-day mortality and major bleeding in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE in the 2021-2022 period.

Thrombotic Long-Term Consequences of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a U.S. Database

BACKGROUND

Cirrhosis causes an imbalance in the coagulation pathway and leads to a tendency for both bleeding and clotting. SARS-CoV-2 has been reported to be associated with a hypercoagulable state. This study examines SARS-CoV-2's impact on hemostasis in compensated patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We analyzed the US Collaborative Network, which comprises 63 HCOs in the U.S.A. Compensated cirrhosis patients were split into two groups: SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative. Patients' baseline characteristics were used in a 1:1 propensity score-matched module to create comparable cohorts. We compared the risk of portal vein thrombosis (PVT), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) at 6 months, and 1 and 3 years.

RESULTS

Of 330,521 patients, 27% tested positive and 73% remained negative. After PSM, both cohorts included 74,738 patients. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 had a higher rate of PVT compared to those without at 6 months (0.63% vs 0.5%, p < 0.05), 1 year (0.8% vs 0.6%, p < 0.05), and 3 years (1% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.05), a higher rate of DVT at 6 months (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05), 1 year (1% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.05), and 3 years (1.4% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.05), and a higher rate of PE at 6 months (0.6% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.05), 1 year (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05), and 3 years (1% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with compensated cirrhosis was associated with a higher rate of PVT, DVT, and PE at 6 months, and 1 and 3 years.

From ICU Syndromes to ICU Subphenotypes: Consensus Report and Recommendations for Developing Precision Medicine in the ICU

Critical care uses syndromic definitions to describe patient groups for clinical practice and research. There is growing recognition that a "precision medicine" approach is required and that integrated biologic and physiologic data identify reproducible subpopulations that may respond differently to treatment. This article reviews the current state of the field and considers how to successfully transition to a precision medicine approach. To impact clinical care, identification of subpopulations must do more than differentiate prognosis. It must differentiate response to treatment, ideally by defining subgroups with distinct functional or pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). There are now multiple examples of reproducible subpopulations of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney or brain injury described using clinical, physiological, and/or biological data. Many of these subpopulations have demonstrated the potential to define differential treatment response, largely in retrospective studies, and that the same treatment-responsive subpopulations may cross multiple clinical syndromes (treatable traits). To bring about a change in clinical practice, a precision medicine approach must be evaluated in prospective clinical studies requiring novel adaptive trial designs. Several such studies are underway, but there are multiple challenges to be tackled. Such subpopulations must be readily identifiable and be applicable to all critically ill populations around the world. Subdividing clinical syndromes into subpopulations will require large patient numbers. Global collaboration of investigators, clinicians, industry, and patients over many years will therefore be required to transition to a precision medicine approach and ultimately realize treatment advances seen in other medical fields.

Oral Colchicine and Low-Dose Aspirin Combination Therapy for Non-elderly, Non-severe, Early Time From Onset, Adult Outpatients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) during "The Fifth Pandemic Wave" in Japan

BACKGROUND

Treatment with antiviral drugs for non-severe, early time from onset, adult outpatients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) had not been established in 2021. However, some new variants of SARS-CoV-2 had caused rapid exacerbation and hospitalization among non-elderly outpatients with COVID-19, contributing to widespread crises within healthcare systems.

METHODS

From July to October 2021, we urgently assessed a therapeutic program using oral colchicine (1.0 mg loading dose, followed approximately half a day later by 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days, and then 0.5 mg once daily for 4 days) and low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily for 10 days), for non-elderly, non-severe, early time from onset, adult outpatients with COVID-19. To verify its effectiveness, we set loxoprofen as a control arm, and com parison of these two arms was performed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization, criticality, and death rates.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients (23 receiving colchicine and low-dose aspirin [CA]; 15 receiving loxoprofen [LO]) were evaluated. Hospitalization rate was lower in the CA group (1/23; 4.3%) than in the LO group (2/15; 13.3%); however, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p=0.34). No critical cases, deaths, or severe adverse events were found in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our CA regimen did not show superiority over LO treatment. However, our clinical experience should be recorded as part of community health care activities carried out in Kurume City against the unprece dented COVID-19 pandemic.

Antithrombotic Prophylaxis with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Prehospital COVID-19: A Meta-analysis of Two Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

 We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily in prehospital patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Individually, the trials had limited power to detect a treatment effect due to recruitment stopping ahead of plan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 The statistical analysis plan for the meta-analysis was finalized before unblinding of PREVENT-HD, the larger of the two trials. Pooled risk ratios and pooled risk differences along with the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

 Rivaroxaban did not reduce the occurrence of either the primary prespecified endpoint, a composite of symptomatic arterial and venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality (risk difference: 0.0044; 95% confidence interval: -0.0263, 0.0175; p = 0.69 for pooled risk difference) or the secondary endpoint of all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.76). Although thrombotic events were infrequent, pooled analysis did reveal that rivaroxaban reduced arterial and venous thrombotic events (placebo 6 events, rivaroxaban 0 events; pooled risk difference: -0.0068; 95% confidence interval: -0.0132, -0.0006; p = 0.03). In the pooled studies, only one major bleeding event was observed in a rivaroxaban-allocated patient with no critical site or fatal bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

 Although this meta-analysis does not support antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban in a broad prehospital population with acute COVID-19, the prevention of arterial and venous thrombotic events among rivaroxaban-allocated patients is consistent with the known thromboprophylactic effect of the drug in medically ill patients.

Long-term course of ambulatory patients with COVID-19 initially treated with enoxaparin vs no anticoagulation: final analysis of the OVID (enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19) randomized trial

Background

Early thromboprophylaxis does not prevent hospital admissions and death among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Its impact on long-term outcomes, including long COVID symptoms and performance status, is unknown.

Objectives

To assess the long-term effects of thromboprophylaxis given at the time of acute COVID-19 in outpatients.

Methods

The OVID (enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19) trial randomized outpatients older than 50 years with acute COVID-19 to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days or standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). In this follow-up study, we assessed the 2-year outcomes, including all-cause hospitalization and death, cardiovascular events, long COVID symptoms, and functional limitations based on the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels scale.

Results

Of 469 potentially eligible patients, 468 survived, of whom 439 (mean age 59 years; 54% men) participated in the Post-OVID study. There was no difference in terms of hospitalization and death (8.3% in the treatment group vs 10% in controls; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.5-1.5) and of cardiovascular events between groups. The risk of presenting with long COVID symptoms was similar in the 2 groups (44% in the treatment group vs 47% in the standard of care group), with no difference between groups also concerning individual symptoms. A PCFS grade of 1 to 3, indicating light-to-moderate functional limitation, was recorded in 15% of patients in each group (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7). No patients reported severe limitations (PCFS grade 4). Median EuroQol visual analog scale score was 85 on 100 points (IQR, 80-90 for the standard of care group and 75-90 for the enoxaparin group).

Conclusion

Early thromboprophylaxis does not improve long-term, 2-year clinical and functional outcomes among symptomatic ambulatory patients with acute COVID-19.

Impact of prior use of antiplatelets on COVID-19 susceptibility, progression, and severity: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Hypercoagulability and thromboembolism are processes that arise from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and are responsible for a high degree of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related morbidity and mortality. This study sought to assess the effect of antiplatelet drugs on COVID-19 severity (risk of hospitalization and mortality), susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and progression to severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based case-control study in a northwestern region of Spain in 2020. The study involved 3060 participants with a positive polymerase chain reaction test who were hospitalized, 26 757 participants with a positive polymerase chain reaction test who were not hospitalized, and 56 785 healthy controls.

RESULTS

Triflusal seemed to be associated with a significant increase in risk of hospitalization (aOR, 1.97; 95%CI, 1.27-3.04) and susceptibility to infection (OR, 1.45; 95%CI, 1.07-1.96). It also appeared to lead to a nonsignificant increase in the risk of mortality (OR, 2.23; 95%CI, 0.89-5.55) and/or progression to more severe disease stages (OR, 1.42; 95%CI, 0.8-2.51). Aspirin seemed to be associated with a statistically significant decrease in susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.86-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Triflusal use appears to increase the risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and an even higher risk of hospitalization, whereas the other antiplatelets could be associated with a reduction in the risk of the various outcomes or have no effect on risk. These findings could support reconsideration of triflusal prescription in COVID-19 pandemic situations.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This report is the second update of our systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard thromboprophylaxis, intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation or no anticoagulation in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. We searched eligible studies up to 5 October 2023. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

For this update we included fourteen new RCTs and a total of 27 RCTs with 16,789 patients. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high depending on outcome and comparison. Standard thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect for COVID-19 outpatients compared to no anticoagulation. In inpatients with moderate or severe COVID-19, intermediate dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic events or death, but may increase major bleeding compared to standard thromboprophylaxis. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation decreases thrombotic events or deaths in inpatients with moderate COVID-19, but probably has little or no effect in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to standard thromboprophylaxis with low or intermediate dose anticoagulation. With therapeutic dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding probably increases regardless of COVID-19 severity. We are uncertain on the effect of thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation in the post-discharge setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized, moderately-ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Four years into the pandemic, managing COVID-19 patients with acute coagulopathy: what have we learned?

Coagulopathy alongside micro- and macrovascular thrombotic events were frequent characteristics of patients presenting with acute COVID-19 during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, over the past 4 years, the incidence and manifestations of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy have changed due to immunity from natural infection and vaccination and the appearance of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Diagnostic criteria and management strategies based on early experience and studies for COVID-19-associated coagulopathy thus require reevaluation. As many other infectious disease states are also associated with hemostatic dysfunction, the coagulopathy associated with COVID-19 may be compounded, especially throughout the winter months, in patients with diverse etiologies of COVID-19 and other infections. This commentary examines what we have learned about COVID-19-associated coagulopathy throughout the pandemic and how we might best prepare to mitigate the hemostatic consequences of emerging infection agents.

Appropriate thromboprophylaxis strategy for COVID-19 patients on dosage, antiplatelet therapy, outpatient, and postdischarge prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There was controversy surrounding the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This included debates on the dosage of anticoagulants for thromboembolism prophylaxis, the requirement for additional antiplatelet therapy, and the necessity of prophylaxis for outpatients and postdischarge. To explore this, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 26 July 2023 for studies comparing the effect of different dose of anticoagulation, additional antiplatelet, and postdischarge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of thromboembolism events, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Our study included a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, involving 17 911 patients. Our results revealed that, compared to prophylactic dose, therapeutic dose showed lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.96) but had similar major bleeding risk for critically ill patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, intermediate dose and prophylactic dose demonstrated similar thromboembolism risk and major bleeding risk. For noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic dose of anticoagulants was associated with lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34-0.72) but, at the same time, increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.01; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33). However, intermediate dose showed lower thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21-0.69) while maintaining a similar major bleeding risk. In critically ill patients, additional antiplatelet therapy showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For outpatients, additional prophylactic anticoagulation showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For postdischarge patients, postdischarge prophylaxis reduced thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31-0.76) but increased major bleeding risk (RR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.13-6.14).

CONCLUSION

For noncritically ill patients, therapeutic dose prophylactic anticoagulation significantly reduced venous thromboembolism but increases major bleeding risk. Intermediate dose effectively lowered venous thromboembolism without raising major bleeding risk. The optimal dose and need for additional antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients, as well as the necessity of prophylactic anticoagulation in outpatient and postdischarge patients, required further investigation and confirmation through rigorous evidence studies.

Effect of Aspirin Use on the Adverse Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggers multiple components of the immune system and causes inflammation of endothelial walls across vascular beds, resulting in respiratory failure, arterial and venous thrombosis, myocardial injury, and multi-organ failure leading to death. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, aspirin was suggested for the treatment of symptomatic individuals, given its analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and antiviral effects. This study aimed to evaluate the association of aspirin use with various clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

This was a retrospective study involving patients aged ≥ 18 years and hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to October 2020. Primary outcomes were acute cardiovascular events (ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), type 1 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), acute congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute stroke) and death. Secondary outcomes were respiratory failure, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE).

Results

Of 376 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 128 were taking aspirin. Significant proportions of native Americans were hospitalized for COVID-19 in both aspirin (22.7%) and non-aspirin (24.6%) groups. Between aspirin and non-aspirin groups, no significant differences were found with regard to mechanical ventilator support (21.1% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.16), acute cardiovascular events (7.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.32), acute DVT/PE (3.9% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.9), readmission rate (13.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.91) and mortality (23.4% vs. 20.2%, P = 0.5); however, the median duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter (7 vs. 9 days, P = 0.04) and median length of hospitalization was significantly longer (5.5 vs. 4 days, P = 0.01) in aspirin group compared to non-aspirin group.

Conclusion

No significant differences were found in acute cardiovascular events, acute DVT/PE, mechanical ventilator support, and mortality rate between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were taking aspirin compared to those not taking aspirin. However, larger studies are required to confirm our findings.

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

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

Thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Patients with COVID-19 develop an increased risk of thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19 is less well defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis among outpatients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 2023. The outcomes of interest were venous thromboembolic events including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, hospitalization, major bleeding events, and non-major bleeding events. We included 6 trials comprising 3352 patients. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had an approximately 70% reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.93]) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The risk of mortality (RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.77]), cardiovascular events (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.30 to 2.73]), and hospitalization (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.47]) were similar between the two groups. Patients who received thromboprophylaxis had a higher risk of non-major bleeding (RR, 3.48 [95% CI, 1.72 to 7.05) compared to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism but not mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalization among outpatients with COVID-19.

Vaccination and the risk of post-acute sequelae after COVID-19 in the Omicron-predominant period

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association of primary and third doses of vaccination with the risk of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized a combined database of nationwide health care claims data, COVID-19 patient registry, and vaccination records from South Korea. Individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the Omicron variant-dominant period of January-March 2022 were tracked for 30-120 days post-infection. The exposure of interest was the receipt of primary and third doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The occurrence of 26 specific conditions in eight domains was compared using Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

This study included 394 773 unvaccinated individuals and 7 604 081 individuals receiving ≥2 doses of vaccine. Compared with unvaccinated individuals, vaccination with at least two doses was associated with a reduced risk (adjusted hazard ratio; 95% CI) of several conditions, including ischaemic heart disease (0.73; 0.57-0.94), heart failure (0.55; 0.48-0.63), cardiac dysrhythmia (0.72; 0.61-0.85), cardiac arrest (0.41; 0.33-0.51), pulmonary embolism (0.66; 0.52-0.84), venous thromboembolism (0.54; 0.44-0.66), acute renal failure (0.56; 0.46-0.67), new dialysis (0.45; 0.34-0.59), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.74; 0.65-0.84), acute pancreatitis (0.64; 0.51-0.80), and diabetes (0.82; 0.71-0.95). The risks of heart failure, cardiac dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and new dialysis were lower in those who were vaccinated with three doses compared with those who were vaccinated with two doses.

DISCUSSION

Vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, suggesting its potential role in mitigating the indirect impacts of COVID-19.

Low absolute risk of thrombotic and cardiovascular events in outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy may contribute to an excess risk of thrombotic or cardiovascular events. COVID-19 increases the risk of these events, although the risk is relatively limited among outpatients. We sought to determine whether outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a high risk for cardiovascular or thrombotic events.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We analyzed pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 from the multicenter CORONA-VTE-Network registry. The main study outcomes were a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombotic events, and a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular events. Events were assessed 90 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis and reported for non-pregnant women ≤45 years, and for men ≤45 years, as points of reference.

RESULTS

Among 6585 outpatients, 169 were pregnant at diagnosis. By 90-day follow-up, two pregnant women during the third trimester had lower extremity venous thrombosis, one deep and one superficial vein thrombosis. The cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 1.20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 to 2.84 %). Respective rates were 0.47 % (95 % CI: 0.14 % to 0.79 %) among non-pregnant women, and 0.49 % (95 % CI: 0.06 % to 0.91 %) among men ≤45 years. No non-thrombotic cardiovascular events occurred in pregnant women. The rates of cardiovascular events were 0.53 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 0.87) among non-pregnant women, and 0.68 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.18) in men aged ≤45 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombotic and cardiovascular events are rare among outpatients with COVID-19. Although a higher event rate among outpatient pregnant women cannot be excluded, the absolute event rates are low and do not warrant population-wide cardiovascular interventions to optimize outcomes.

Cervical Spine Surgery Following COVID-19 Infection: When is it Safe to Proceed?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

We utilized the NIH National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database to characterize the risk profile of patients undergoing spine surgery during multiple time windows following the COVID-19 infection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While the impact of COVID-19 on various organ systems is well documented, there is limited knowledge regarding its effect on perioperative complications following spine surgery or the optimal timing of surgery after an infection.

METHODS

We asked the National COVID Cohort Collaborative for patients who underwent cervical spine surgery. Patients were stratified into those with an initial documented COVID-19 infection within 3 time periods: 0-2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, or 6-12 weeks before surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 29,449 patients who underwent anterior approach cervical spine surgery and 46,379 patients who underwent posterior approach cervical spine surgery were included. Patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a significantly increased risk for venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality, irrespective of the anterior or posterior approach. Among patients undergoing surgery between 2 and 6 weeks after COVID-19 infection, the 30-day mortality risk remained elevated in patients undergoing a posterior approach only. Patients undergoing surgery between 6 and 12 weeks from the date of the COVID-19 infection did not show significantly elevated rates of any complications analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing either anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery within 2 weeks from the initial COVID-19 diagnosis are at increased risk for perioperative venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, and mortality. Elevated perioperative complication risk does not persist beyond 2 weeks, except for 30-day mortality in posterior approach surgeries. On the basis of these results, it may be warranted to postpone nonurgent spine surgeries for at least 2 weeks following a COVID-19 infection and advise patients of the increased perioperative complication risk when urgent surgery is required.

Prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to investigate the impact of prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic-dose DOACs with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 until September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events, while major bleeding events were the primary safety outcome. We expressed continuous outcome data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and dichotomous outcome data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

Results

We included six RCTs involving 4307 patients. Prophylactic-dose DOAC therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with significantly decreased risks of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events (1.43% vs 2.67% (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.82, P = 0.004, I2 = 3%)). Major bleeding events were infrequent, and we detected no significant differences between patients assigned to prophylactic-dose DOACs vs placebo or no treatment (0.19% vs 0.05% (RR = 2.50; 95% CI = 0.49-12.87, P = 0.27, I2 = 0%)). The use of prophylactic-dose DOACs was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism, with no difference in all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, hospitalisations, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding between two groups. Sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method for the primary efficacy and safety outcome did not change the effect estimate substantially.

Conclusions

We found that prophylaxis-dose DOACs could significantly improve clinical outcomes and reduce venous thrombotic events without increasing the risk of major bleeding events compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023466889.

Investigation of the relationship between coagulation parameters and mortality in COVID-19 infection

This study, which included patients over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency clinic, aims to determine the relationship between coagulation parameters and mortality. Epidemiologic data such as age, gender, medical history, vital parameters at emergency department admission, clinical findings, coagulation parameters such as d-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), active partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), international normalized ration (INR), fibrinogen, and platelet were evaluated. Patients with positive computerized tomography (CT) findings and positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) together were included in the study. It was revealed that d-dimer, fibrinogen, INR, and PT values were higher in the elderly group. It was shown that there was a significant relationship between hospitalization days (ward or intensive care unit) and d-dimer levels. It was observed that d-dimer, fibrinogen elevation was significantly associated with prognosis by increasing mortality, and that platelet and aPTT values were also associated with prognosis and were lower in the mortality group. On the other hand, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the sensitivity and specificity data were 80.3%/80.0% for d-dimer, 70.5%/72.2% for fibrinogen, 58.2%/59.4% for aPTT, and 59.7%/59.2% for platelet, respectively. The overall classification success was 88.6% and mortality prediction success was 37.7% in the regression model of some coagulation parameters (d-dimer, fibrinogen, aPTT, and platelet) which were effective on prognosis. In conclusion, it was determined that d-dimer, fibrinogen, aPTT, and platelet parameters were directly associated with mortality and when these coagulation parameters were used together with the clinical, vital, and demographic data of the patients, the success of mortality prediction increased significantly.

Safety and efficacy of antithrombotics in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health emergency, with well over six hundred million infections and over six million deaths to date. Besides other ramifications, it is also associated with inflammation and an augmented risk of thromboembolic complications. Despite this, the risks and benefits of antithrombotic drugs in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 have not been well-established and remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic drugs on mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We queried electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Embase) from their inception up to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic drugs against placebo. The outcomes of interest were the need for hospital care, mortality, and thromboembolic events in the enrolled participants. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and were consolidated using random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Five eligible studies (Rivaroxaban/Apixaban, two; enoxaparin, two; Sulodexide, one), consisting of 2,005 participants with mild to moderate COVID-19, were included. Pooled results show that antithrombotics, when compared to placebo, do not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.15-1.68; P = 0.27; I2 = 0), thromboembolic events (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.17-3.51; P = 0.74; I2 = 0), need for hospitalization (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.51-1.03; P = 0.08; I2 = 0), nor significantly increase clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (RR 2.36, 95 % CI 0.56-9.89; P = 0.24; I2 = 0). However, when Sulodexide was compared independently to other antithrombotics, it significantly reduced the need for hospitalization (RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.37-0.95; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our pooled analysis was not able to establish statistically significant benefits or risks of using antithrombotic drugs in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. To further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety and risk profile of such a therapy, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale.

The 125th Anniversary of Aspirin-The Story Continues

The year 2024 marks the 125th anniversary of aspirin, still one of the most frequently used drugs worldwide. Despite its veritable age, it is still relevant in pharmacotherapy and its use has spread to new areas over time. Due to aspirin's multiple pharmacological actions unified in one single molecule (i.e., analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, and antiviral effects), it continues to attract considerable attention in the scientific community and is subject to intense basic and clinical research. In fact, recent results confirmed aspirin's potential role as an antiviral drug and as an agent that can block harmful platelet functions in inflammatory/immunological processes. These features may open up new horizons for this ancient drug. The future of aspirin looks, therefore, bright and promising. Aspirin is not yet ready for retirement; on the contrary, its success story continues. This 125th anniversary paper will concisely review the various therapeutic uses of aspirin with a particular emphasis on the latest research results and their implications (e.g., use as an antiviral agent). In addition, the reader is provided with future perspectives for this remarkable drug.

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

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

Effect of antiplatelet therapy after COVID-19 diagnosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic disease in the venous and arterial circulations.

METHODS

Based on the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in COVID-19 patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of antiplatelet treatments. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on February 1, 2023, and only included Randomized clinical trials. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and used Random-effects models to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI.

RESULTS

Five unique eligible studies were included, covering 17,950 patients with COVID-19. The result showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of all-cause death in antiplatelet therapy versus non-antiplatelet therapy (RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.83-1.05, P = 0.26, I2 = 32%). Compared to no antiplatelet therapy, patients who received antiplatelet therapy had a significantly increased relative risk of major bleeding (RR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09-3.00, P = 0.02, I2 = 16%). The sequential analysis suggests that more RCTs are needed to draw more accurate conclusions. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the use of antiplatelet agents exhibited no significant benefit on all-cause death, and the upper bound of the confidence interval on all-cause death (RR 95% CI, 0.83-1.05) suggested that it was unlikely to be a substantiated harm risk associated with this treatment. However, evidence from all RCTs suggested a high risk of major bleeding in antiplatelet agent treatments.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of our sequential analysis, there is not enough evidence available to support or negate the use of antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 cases. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials are needed.

COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease

Millions of people worldwide have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Affected patients are at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease for several reasons. Among various comorbidities, CKD is associated with the more severe forms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This is particularly true for patients receiving dialysis or for kidney recipients. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several CV complications have been observed in affected subjects, spanning acute inflammatory manifestations, CV events, thrombotic episodes and arrythmias. Several pathogenetic mechanisms have been hypothesized, including direct cytopathic viral effects on the myocardium, endothelial damage and hypercoagulability. This spectrum of disease can occur during the acute phase of the infection, but also months after recovery. This review is focussed on the CV complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with particular interest in their implications for the CKD population.

Association between antithrombotic therapy and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID‑19

BACKGROUND

The prothrombotic state is a common abnormality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is controversy over the use of anticoagulants, especially oral anticoagulants (OAC) due to limited studies. We sought to evaluate the association between antithrombotic therapy on mortality and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 through propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed to include adult patients with COVID-19 in a university hospital. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization. PSM was used as a powerful tool for matching patients' baseline characteristics. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the models.

RESULTS

Of 4,881 COVID-19 patients during the study period, 690 (14.1%) patients received antithrombotic therapy and 4,191 (85.9%) patients were under no antithrombotic therapy. After adjustment with multivariate regression analysis, patients receiving OAC, compared with those who did not receive any antithrombotic therapy, had significantly lower odds for in-hospital mortality (aOR: 0.46. 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.87; P= 0.017). PSM analysis observed similar results (aOR: 0.35. 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.61; P< 0.001). Moreover, in critically ill patients who received mechanical ventilation, antithrombotic treatment (aOR: 0.54. 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.89; P= 0.022) was associated with reduced risk of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The application OACs was associated with reduced hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement in COVID-19 patients. Besides, antithrombotic treatment was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients who required mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis. New evidence

Recent publications have questioned the efficacy of using therapeutic or intermediate doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in COVID-19 patients, especially in the most severe patients. In order to update these recommendations, a non-systematic review has been carried out in the main medical databases. A total of 14 randomized clinical trials, 14 meta-analyses and the recommendations of 12 scientific societies were selected, stratified according to the type of patient (outpatient, hospitalized, admitted to critical care or post-discharge). The efficacy of LMWH and other therapeutic approaches (rivaroxaban, apixaban, sulodexide, acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitors) has been analyzed. The findings recommend using standard doses of LMWH as thromboprophylaxis in critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients and therapeutic doses in non-critically hospitalized patients if the risk of bleeding is low. In outpatients and those discharged from the hospital, LMWH could be used at a prophylactic dose if there are thrombotic risk factors, and the bleeding risk is low. It is not recommended to associate antiplatelet agents with LMWH unless previously indicated.

Clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 published in leading medical journals report adherence but not how it was assessed

AIMS

Adherence to pharmacological interventions in clinical trials is crucial for accurate identification of beneficial and adverse outcomes. The ways in which adherence to interventions should be reported in trial publications are described in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), a 12-item extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with TIDieR Items 11 and 12 of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in SARS-CoV-2 infection published in 5 selected journals during 2021.

METHODS

We assessed pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 infection reported in RCTs published in 2021 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal for Medicine for compliance with TIDieR items addressing intervention adherence (Items 11 and 12). We calculated proportional adherence for pharmacological and comparator interventions where available.

RESULTS

We found 75 eligible RCTs. Twenty-eight (37%) reported results of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Compliance with Items 11 and 12 could be assessed in 71 of these 75. Of the 71 RCTs, 37 (52%) reported how adherence was assessed (Item 11), and 70 reported adherence rates (Item 12). Only 1 of the 71 RCTs (1.4%, 0-7.6%) fully complied with TIDieR Items 11 and 12.

CONCLUSION

Half of RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 pharmacological interventions published in leading medical journals in 2021 complied with reporting of how adherence assessments were made and almost none complied with both TIDieR Items 11 and 12. The implications for interpretation, application and replication of findings based on these publications warrant consideration.

A temporal analysis of perioperative complications following COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion: When is it safe to proceed?

Background Context

COVID-19 has been shown to adversely affect multiple organ systems, yet little is known about its effect on perioperative complications after spine surgery or the optimal timing of surgery after an infection. We used the NIH National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database to characterize the risk profile in patients undergoing spine surgery during multiple time windows following COVID-19 infection.

Methods

We queried the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, a database of 17.4 million persons with 6.9 million COVID-19 cases, for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Patients were stratified into those with an initial documented COVID-19 infection within 3 time periods: 0 to 2 weeks, 2 to 6 weeks, or 6 to 12 weeks before surgery.

Results

A total of 60,541 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion procedures were included. Patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a significantly increased risk for venous thromboembolic events (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.58-3.32), sepsis (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.36), 30-day mortality (OR 5.55, 95% CI 3.53-8.71), and 1-year mortality (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.91-3.82) compared with patients who were COVID negative during the same period. There was no significant difference in the rates of acute kidney injury or surgical site infection. Patients undergoing surgery between 2 and 6 weeks or between 6 and 12 weeks from the date of COVID-19 infection did not show significantly elevated rates of any complication analyzed.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion within 2 weeks from initial COVID-19 diagnosis are at increased risk for perioperative venous thromboembolic events and sepsis. This effect does not persist beyond 2 weeks, however, so it may be warranted to postpone non-urgent spine surgeries for at least 2 weeks following a COVID-19 infection or to consider a more aggressive VTE chemoprophylaxis regimen for urgent surgery in COVID-19 patients.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

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

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

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial

BACKGROUND

An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain.

DESIGN

The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ± 3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ± 3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately.

CONCLUSION

The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941.

Direct-to-participant investigational medicinal product supply in clinical trials in Europe: Exploring the experiences of sponsors, site staff and couriers

AIMS

Insights into the current practice of direct-to-participant (DtP) supply of investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the context of clinical trials conducted in Europe are needed, as regulations are unharmonized. This study is set out to explore how DtP IMP supply has been employed in Europe and what the advantages and disadvantages and barriers and facilitators of its implementation are.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from sponsor companies, courier services and site study staff involved in the IMP dispensing and delivery process in Europe. Interviews were conducted between May and November 2021, and data were analysed following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen respondents participated in one of the 12 interviews. Respondents had experience with different models of DtP IMP supply including shipment from the investigative site, a central pharmacy (a depot under the control of a pharmacist) and a local pharmacy-aiming to reduce trial participation burden. The respondents indicated that investigative site-to-participant shipment is not affected by regulatory barriers, but could burden site staff. Shipment from central locations was considered most efficient, but possible regulatory barriers related to maintaining participants' privacy and investigator oversight were identified. The respondents indicated that the involvement of local pharmacies to dispense IMP can be considered when the IMP is authorized.

CONCLUSIONS

Several DtP IMP supply models are implemented in clinical trials conducted in Europe. In this study, three main DtP IMP models were identified, which can be referenced when describing these approaches for regulatory approval.

Pulmonary embolism post-Covid-19 infection: physiopathological mechanisms and vascular damage biomarkers

Covid-19 infection is characterized by several acute complications, as well long-term sequelae, mostly sustained by endothelial dysfunction; several studies show that complications as pulmonary embolism (PE) are described both in the acute phase and after negativization. Aim of research was to evaluate anthropometric, bio-humoral, instrumental parameters in a group of patients affected by PE after recent Covid-19 infection compared to PE patients without previous Covid-19 infection. We enrolled 72 consecutive patients (35M, 37F) with acute PE, distinguished in relation to previous acute Covid-19 infection: 54 pts without previous acute Covid-19 infection and 18 pts with previous Covid-19 infection within negativity at least 2 months before PE diagnosis; 44 healthy subjects (21M, 23F) were recruited as control group. Patients who had previously developed Covid-19 needed hospitalization in high percentage (84%); this group showed significantly higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus than Covid-19-free PE patients, reduced serum levels of C-reactive protein, sST2 and PESI score. In post-Covid-19 PE group, we observed higher mean IMPROVE risk score, whereas in Covid-19-free group lower P/F ratio, higher radiological severity, and worse PESI score and severity index. Covid-19 infection affects not just the lung parenchyma but also other organs; endothelial damage plays pivotal role in long-term alterations; in high thrombotic risk group (recent hospitalization due to acute Covid-19 infection), we have described thrombotic complications characterized by persistent prothrombotic state after recovery, highlighted by well-known markers as PCR and D-Dimer as well as novel vascular marker (sST2).

Step up to the platelet: Role of platelets in inflammation and infection

Platelets are anucleated cells derived from megakaryocytes that are primarily responsible for hemostasis. However, in recent years, these cytoplasts have become increasingly recognized as immune cells, able to detect, interact with, and kill pathogens. As platelets are involved in both immunity and coagulation, they have a central role in immunothrombosis, a physiological process in which immune cells induce the formation of microthrombi to both prevent the spread of pathogens, and to help facilitate clearance. In this review, we will highlight the role of platelets as key players in the inflammatory and innate immune response against bacterial and viral infection, including direct and indirect interactions with pathogens and other immune cells.

Estrogen-based hormonal therapy and the risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

Estrogen-containing contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy are used commonly, however, the risks of venous and arterial thrombosis imparted by such medications during COVID-19 infection or other similar viral infections remain undescribed.

METHODS

To assess the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis in patients receiving oral estrogen-containing therapy (ECT) with COVID-19 as compared to those receiving non-estrogen-based hormonal therapy, we conducted a multicenter cohort study of 991 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection, 466 receiving estrogen-containing hormonal therapy, and 525 receiving progestin-only or topical therapy.

RESULTS

The use of estrogen-containing therapy was found to significantly increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following COVID-19 diagnosis after controlling for age (HR 5.46 [95% CI 1.12-26.7, p = .036]). This risk was highest in patients over age 50, with 8.6% of patients receiving estrogen-containing therapy diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.9% of those receiving non-estrogen-based therapies (p = .026). The risk of arterial thrombosis was not significantly associated with oral estrogen use.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that estrogen-containing therapy is associated with a significantly increased risk of VTE in COVID-19 patients, especially in older individuals. These findings may guide provider counseling and management of patients with COVID-19 on estrogen-containing therapy.

Initial therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic therapy with heparins in moderate to severe COVID-19: results of the COVID-PREVENT randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state. Current guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation upon hospitalization.

METHODS

COVID-PREVENT, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial enrolled patients (≥ 18 years) with moderate to severe COVID-19 and age-adjusted D-dimers > 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN). The participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily or thromboprophylaxis with a heparin (SOC) for at least 7 days followed by prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 28 days or no thromboprophylaxis. The primary efficacy outcome was the D-dimer level and the co-primary efficacy outcome the 7-category ordinal COVID-19 scale by WHO at 7 days post randomization. The secondary outcome was time to the composite event of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, new myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death or progression to intubation and invasive ventilation up to 35 days post randomization.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy outcome D-dimer at 7 days was not different between patients assigned to therapeutic (n = 55) or prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 56) (1.21 mg/L [0.79, 1.86] vs 1.27 mg/L [0.79, 2.04], p = 0.78). In the whole study population D-dimer was significantly lower at 7 days compared to baseline (1.05 mg/L [0.75, 1.48] vs 1.57 mg/L [1.13, 2.19], p < 0.0001). Therapy with rivaroxaban compared to SOC was not associated an improvement on the WHO 7-category ordinal scale at 7 days (p = 0.085). Rivaroxaban improved the clinical outcome measured by the score in patients with a higher baseline D-dimer  > 2.0 ULN (exploratory analysis; 0.632 [0.516, 0.748], p = 0.026). The secondary endpoint occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 12 (21.4%) in the SOC group (time-to-first occurrence of the components of the secondary outcome: HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.15-1.67; p = 0.264). There was no difference in fatal or non-fatal major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic anticoagulation with a heparin did not improve surrogates of clinical outcome in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Whether initial rivaroxaban at therapeutic doses might be superior to thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 and a high risk as defined by D-dimer  > 2 ULN needs confirmation in further studies.

Incidence and individual risk prediction of post-COVID-19 cardiovascular disease in the general population: a multivariable prediction model development and validation study

Aims

Previous studies suggest relatively increased cardiovascular risk after COVID-19 infection. This study assessed incidence and explored individual risk and timing of cardiovascular disease occurring post-COVID-19 in a large primary care database.

Methods and results

Data were extracted from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Incidence rates within 180 days post-infection were estimated for arterial or venous events, inflammatory heart disease, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Next, multivariable logistic regression models were developed on 220 751 adults with COVID-19 infection before 1 December 2020 using age, sex and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. All models were externally validated in (i) 138 034 vaccinated and (ii) 503 404 unvaccinated adults with a first COVID-19 infection after 1 December 2020. Discriminative performance and calibration were evaluated with internal and external validation. Increased incidence rates were observed up to 60 days after COVID-19 infection for venous and arterial cardiovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation, but not for inflammatory heart disease or heart failure, with the highest rate for venous events (13 per 1000 person-years). The best prediction models had c-statistics of 0.90 or higher. However, <5% of adults had a predicted 180-day outcome-specific risk larger than 1%. These rare outcomes complicated calibration.

Conclusion

Risks of arterial and venous cardiovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation are increased within the first 60 days after COVID-19 infection in the general population. Models' c-statistics suggest high discrimination, but because of the very low absolute risks, they are insufficient to inform individual risk management.

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial activation in the setting of a potent inflammatory reaction and a hypercoagulable state. The end result of this thromboinflammatory state is an excess in thrombotic events, in particular venous thromboembolism. Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been of special interest in patients with COVID-19 given its association with respiratory deterioration, increased risk of intensive care unit admission, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated PE may differ from the conventional non-COVID-19-associated PE. In addition to embolic events from deep vein thrombi, in situ pulmonary thrombosis, particularly in smaller vascular beds, may be relevant in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate prevention of thrombotic events in COVID-19 has therefore become of critical interest. Several changes in viral biology, vaccination, and treatment management during the pandemic may have resulted in changes in incidence trends. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of COVID-19-associated PE. Furthermore, we briefly summarize the results from randomized controlled trials of preventive antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19, focusing on their findings related to PE. We discuss the acute treatment of COVID-19-associated PE, which is substantially similar to the management of conventional non-COVID-19 PE. Ultimately, we comment on the current knowledge gaps in the evidence and the future directions in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19-associated PE, including long-term management, and its possible association with long-COVID.

Uncertainties about the roles of anticoagulation and microclots in postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

Three years after the start of the pandemic, approaches to the prevention and treatment of acute COVID-19 have been established. However, postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is now the focus of current investigations searching for the etiology of the symptoms and developing diagnostic and treatment strategies, as up to 10% of those with acute COVID-19 will go on to develop PASC, a significant public health burden. Some have suggested that ongoing microvascular thrombosis and microclots may play a role in the persistent sequelae of COVID-19 infection. Treatments are being given to address the presumed role of thrombosis in PASC, and some suggest that randomized controlled trials of anticoagulants in patients with PASC should be performed. In this Forum article, we focus on findings from patients with PASC that have led to the suggestion of using anticoagulants and discuss alternative considerations.

Enoxaparin for symptomatic COVID-19 managed in the ambulatory setting: An individual patient level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC trials

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria).

RESULTS

A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57-1.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13-2.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Coronary Heart Disease: the Next Surge

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, we highlight different ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted coronary heart disease (CHD) burden and how a surge in morbidity and mortality may be expected in the near future. We also discuss potential solutions, and the direction subsequent research and corrective actions should take.

RECENT FINDINGS

COVID-19 has been implicated in the development and worsening of CHD via acute and chronic mechanisms in the form of plaque rupture, destabilization, and sustenance of a chronic inflammatory state leading to long COVID syndrome and increased rates of myocardial infarction. However, indirectly the pandemic is likely to further escalate the CHD burden through poor health behaviors such as tobacco consumption, reduced physical activity, economic devastation and its associated sequelae, and regular cardiac care interruptions and delays. COVID-19 has increased the total CHD burden and will require extensive resource allocation and multifaceted strategies to curb future rise.

Anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19: A narrative review

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

"Click and mortar" opportunities for digitization and consumerism in trials

BACKGROUND

Digitization (using novel digital tools and strategies) and consumerism (taking a consumer-oriented approach) are increasingly commonplace in clinical trials, but the implications of these changes are not well described.

METHODS

We assembled a group of trial experts from academia, industry, non-profit, and government to discuss implications of this changing trial landscape and provide guidance.

RESULTS

Digitization and consumerism can increase the volume and diversity of trial participants and expedite recruitment. However, downstream bottlenecks, challenges with retention, and serious issues with equity, ethics, and security can result. A "click and mortar" approach, combining approaches from novel and traditional trials with the thoughtful use of technology, may optimally balance opportunities and challenges facing many trials.

CONCLUSION

We offer expert guidance and three "click and mortar" approaches to digital, consumer-oriented trials. More guidance and research are needed to navigate the associated opportunities and challenges.

Thrombotic complications in children with Coronavirus disease 2019 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome of Childhood

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy is multifactorial and involves inflammation driven hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, and impaired fibrinolysis. Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of both venous thromboembolism and ischemic stroke, resulting in adverse outcomes, including increased mortality. Although COVID-19 in children follows a less severe course, both arterial and venous thromboses have been reported in hospitalized children with COVID-19. Additionally, some children develop a postinfectious, hyperinflammatory illness termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood (MIS-C), which is also associated with hypercoagulability and thrombosis. Several randomized trials have evaluated the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in adults with COVID-19, although similar pediatric data are lacking. In this narrative review, we discuss the postulated pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy and summarize principal findings of the recently completed adult trials of antithrombotic therapy. We provide an up-to-date summary of pediatric studies investigating the rate of venous thromboembolism and ischemic stroke in COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood in addition to reviewing the findings of the single, nonrandomized pediatric trial investigating the safety of prophylactic anticoagulation. Lastly, we outline adult and pediatric consensus guidelines on the use of antithrombotic therapy in this cohort. A detailed discussion of the practical implementation and current limitations of published data will hopefully address the knowledge deficits surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapy in children with COVID-19 and generate hypotheses for future research.