ABSTRACT
Background. An increased incidence of thromboembolic events in hospitalised COVID19 patients has been demonstrated despite the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Antiplatelet therapy prior to admission and early in the disease course has been hypothesised to be protective against thrombosis.Objectives. To describe the bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID19 receiving LMWH, with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore predictors of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes, and dosing practices of antiplatelet therapy and LMWH.Methods. We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional study of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes at Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the first COVID19 wave, in 808 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID19 receiving LMWH with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed if predictors were deemed statistically and clinically significant.Results. Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had similar bleeding outcomes compared with patients only receiving LMWH (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 - 4.0). Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had increased odds of developing thrombosis compared with patients only receiving LMWH (OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.1 - 10.7).Conclusion. The bleeding risk in COVID19 patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was not significantly increased. A potentially higher risk of thrombosis in patients receiving LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was observed. However, this could reflect confounding by indication. Randomised studies are required to further evaluate the use of antiplatelet therapy to treat hospitalised patients with COVID19.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Thrombosis , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , COVID-19 , Hemorrhage , InpatientsABSTRACT
Background. Non-adherence to antihypertensives is a cause of 'pseudo-treatment-resistant' hypertension.Objective. To determine whether monitoring plasma amlodipine concentrations and inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) can be adjunct adherence tools.Methods. Patients with hypertension who were prescribed enalapril and amlodipine were enrolled. Blood pressures (BPs) were monitored and an adherence questionnaire was completed. Steady-state amlodipine was assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and degree of ACE inhibition using the Z-FHL/HHL (z-phenylalanine-histidine-leucine/hippuryl-histidine-leucine) ratio.Results. One hundred patients (mean (standard deviation) age 50.5 (12) years, 46% male) were enrolled. Based on plasma assays, 26/97 patients (26.8%) were unsuppressed by enalapril and 20/100 (20%) were sub-therapeutic for amlodipine. There were significant BP differences based on plasma levels of the medication: 21/20 mmHg lower in the group with suppressed ACE and 26/20 mmHg in the group with steady-state amlodipine concentrations.Conclusions. Monitoring antihypertensive adherence by assaying plasma medication concentrations is a feasible option for evaluating true v. pseudo-resistant hypertension