A comprehensive review of adverse events to drugs used in COVID-19 patients: Recent clinical evidence

Characterization of cardiovascular serious adverse events after bypass or endovascular revascularization for limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular complications after revascularization to treat chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are a major concern that guides treatment. Our goal was to assess periprocedural cardiac and vascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial.

METHODS

BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing surgical (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization for patients with CLTI. Thirty-day SAEs, classified as cardiac or vascular, were analyzed. Adverse events are defined as serious when they affect safety in the trial, require prolonged hospitalization, result in significant disability or incapacitation, are life-threatening, or result in death. Interventions were analyzed in a per protocol fashion.

RESULTS

In the BEST-CLI trial, 850 OPEN and 896 ENDO interventions were evaluated. Forty (4.7%) and 34 (3.8%) patients experienced at least one cardiac SAE after OPEN and ENDO intervention, respectively (P = .35). Overall, there were 53 cardiac SAEs (0.06 per patient) after OPEN and 40 (0.045 per patient) after ENDO interventions. Cardiac SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as related to ischemia (50.9%), arrhythmias (17%), heart failure (15.1%), arrest (13.2%), and heart block (3.8%); in the ENDO arm, they were classified as ischemia (47.5%), heart failure (17.5%), arrhythmias (15%), arrest (15%), and heart block (5%). Approximately half of SAEs were classified as severe for both OPEN and ENDO. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 30.2% and 25% in the OPEN and ENDO arms, respectively (P = .2). Vascular SAEs occurred in 58 (6.8%) and 86 (9.6%) of patients after OPEN and ENDO revascularization, respectively (P = .19). In total, there were 59 (0.07 per patient) and 87 (0.097 per patient) vascular SAEs after OPEN and ENDO procedures. Vascular SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as distal ischemia/infection (44.1%), bleeding (16.9%), occlusive (15.3%), thromboembolic (15.3%), cerebrovascular (5.1%), and other (3.4%); in the ENDO arm, they were distal ischemia/infection (40.2%), occlusive (31%), bleeding (12.6%), thromboembolic (8%), cerebrovascular (1.1%), and other (4.6%). SAEs were classified as severe for OPEN in 45.8% and ENDO in 46%. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 23.7% and 35.6% in the OPEN and ENDO arms (P = .35), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing OPEN and ENDO revascularization experienced similar degrees of cardiac and vascular SAEs. The majority were not related to the index intervention, but approximately half were severe.

Perioperative complications following open or endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI Trial

OBJECTIVE

Anticipated perioperative morbidity is an important factor for choosing a revascularization method for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Our goal was to assess systemic perioperative complications of patients treated with surgical and endovascular revascularization in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial.

METHODS

BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies for patients with CLTI. Two parallel cohorts were studied: Cohort 1 included patients with adequate single-segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV), whereas Cohort 2 included those without SSGSV. Data were queried for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-composite myocardial infarction, stroke, death), non-serious (non-SAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (criteria-death/life-threatening/requiring hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization/significant disability/incapacitation/affecting subject safety in trial) 30 days after the procedure. Per protocol analysis was used (intervention received without crossover), and risk-adjusted analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There were 1367 patients (662 OPEN, 705 ENDO) in Cohort 1 and 379 patients (188 OPEN, 191 ENDO) in Cohort 2. Thirty-day mortality in Cohort 1 was 1.5% (OPEN 1.8%; ENDO 1.3%) and in Cohort 2 was 1.3% (2.7% OPEN; 0% ENDO). MACE in Cohort 1 was 4.7% for OPEN vs 3.13% for ENDO (P = .14), and in Cohort 2, was 4.28% for OPEN and 1.05% for ENDO (P = .15). On risk-adjusted analysis, there was no difference in 30-day MACE for OPEN vs ENDO for Cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-2.64; P = .16) or Cohort 2 (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.48-9.88; P = .31). The incidence of acute renal failure was similar across interventions; in Cohort 1 it was 3.6% for OPEN vs 2.1% for ENDO (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.85-3.12; P = .14), and in Cohort 2, it was 4.2% OPEN vs 1.6% ENDO (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 0.75-10.8; P = .12). The occurrence of venous thromboembolism was low overall and was similar between groups in Cohort 1 (OPEN 0.9%; ENDO 0.4%) and Cohort 2 (OPEN 0.5%; ENDO 0%). Rates of any non-SAEs in Cohort 1 were 23.4% in OPEN and 17.9% in ENDO (P = .013); in Cohort 2, they were 21.8% for OPEN and 19.9% for ENDO (P = .7). Rates for any SAEs in Cohort 1 were 35.3% for OPEN and 31.6% for ENDO (P = .15); in Cohort 2, they were 25.5% for OPEN and 23.6% for ENDO (P = .72). The most common types of non-SAEs and SAEs were infection, procedural complications, and cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

In BEST-CLI, patients with CLTI who were deemed suitable candidates for open lower extremity bypass surgery had similar peri-procedural complications following either OPEN or ENDO revascularization: In such patients, concern about risk of peri-procedure complications should not be a deterrent in deciding revascularization strategy. Rather, other factors, including effectiveness in restoring perfusion and patient preference, are more relevant.

Does the use of cysteine-rich whey protein supplements (Inmunocal®) improve the health well-being of COVID-19 patients? A qualitative study

<b>Introduction:</b> In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it has been proposed that oxidative stress may contribute to the management of COVID-19 severity. The impact on the well-being of patients with COVID-19 using cysteine-providing supplements has not yet been evaluated and there is a need to understand the benefits and limitations they may offer.<br /> <b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of improved well-being with cysteine-rich whey protein supplementation (Immunocal®) in patients with COVID-19.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> A qualitative study was conducted by conducting semi-structured interviews with four participants taking Immunocal® while they had COVID-19. Participants were randomly recruited through internet networking. Ethical approval was obtained from the University ethics committee. Participants were informed of the study objectives two days in advance and consent was obtained before interviews began. We used the 16-item “Use of Immunocal supplement for COVID-19” (USIC-19) questionnaire to inquire about COVID-19 behavior (time of illness, symptoms, and severity of illness) and the experience of using the supplement during illness. Confidentiality was maintained throughout this study.<br /> <b>Results:</b> All participants presented mild discomfort such as headache, weakness, and tiredness when they had COVID-19 impacting most of them emotionally. The use of Immunocal® produced a partial improvement in all patients as only two continued to experience fatigue. Immunocal® improved the mood (50%) and physical health of the participants. In addition, participants reported that the supplement was recommended and dosed primarily by a consultant and that they did not feel hesitant to use it because of previous experiences of friends and family. The daily dosage of half of the participants was two sachets and all felt the need to consume the supplement which resulted in daily use.<br /> <b>Conclusion:</b> Following the daily dosage indications of the consultants, the participants who have consumed Inmunocal® have presented a partial improvement of the symptoms related to COVID-19, however, they feel the need to consume the supplement daily to improve their quality of life.

The role of platelets, neutrophils and endothelium in COVID-19 infection

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is associated to an increased risk of thrombosis, as a result of a complex process that involves the activation of vascular and circulating cells, the release of soluble inflammatory and thrombotic mediators and blood clotting activation.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pathophysiological role of platelets, neutrophils and the endothelium, and of their interactions, in the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 patients, and the current and future therapeutic approaches targeting these cell types.

EXPERT OPINION

Virus-induced platelet, neutrophil and endothelial cell changes are crucial triggers of the thrombotic complications and of the adverse evolution of COVID-19. Both the direct interaction with the virus and the associated cytokine storm concur to trigger cell activation in a classical thromboinflammatory vicious circle. Although heparin has proven to be an effective prophylactic and therapeutic weapon for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19-associated thrombosis, it acts downstream of the cascade of events triggered by SARS-CoV-2. The identification of specific molecular targets interrupting the thromboinflammatory cascade upstream, and more specifically acting either on the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with blood and vascular cells or on the specific signalling mechanisms associated with their COVID-19-associated activation, might theoretically offer greater protection with potentially lesser side effects.