ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus led to a global pandemic. HCQ and FPV were used early in the pandemic as a treatment modality for COVID-19. Various studies evaluated the HCQ and FPV effectiveness, based on the mortality endpoint and showed conflicting results. We hypothesize that analyzing the difference in the LOS as a significant endpoint would be of a major interest, especially for healthcare providers, to prevent a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study, conducted via a medical chart review of COVD-19 patients who were admitted between April 2020 and March 2021 with a moderate to severe illness. The LOS endpoint was tested using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) model. Prior to using the WSR model, the balance between the HCQ and FPV groups, the propensity score matching, the LOS distribution, and the normality assumptions were tested. Two sensitivity statistical analyses were conducted to confirm the results (stratified log-rank test and U Welch test after transforming the LOS by the squared root values). Results: A total of 200 patients were included for the analysis: 83 patients in the HCQ group and 117 patients in the FPV group. Thirty-seven patients were matched in each group. The LOS data was positively skewed and violated the normality (Shapiro−Wilk p < 0.001) and had an unequal variance (Levene's test, p = 0.019). The WSR test showed no statistical significance in the LOS endpoint, with a median of −0.75 days (95% confidence interval: −4.0 to 2.5, p = 0.629), in favor of the HCQ group (four days), in comparison to seven days of the FPV group. The WSR findings were further confirmed with the stratified log rank test (p = 740) and the U Welch test (p = 391). Conclusions: The study concluded that the HCQ and FPV treatments have a comparable effectiveness in terms of the LOS in the moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. This study highlights the importance of analyzing the LOS as a relevant endpoint, in order to prevent the costs of a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. The current study also emphasizes the importance of applying the appropriate statistical testing when dealing with two-sample paired data and analyzing non-parametric data such as the LOS.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab, and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. Survival analyses with inverse propensity score treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were conducted. To account for immortal bias, we used Cox proportional modeling with time-dependent covariance. Competing risk analysis was performed for the extubation endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 556 (tocilizumab = 193, control = 363) patients were included. Males constituted the majority of the participants (69.2% in tocilizumab arm,74.1% in control arm). Tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in mortality with hazard ratio [(HR) = 0.82,95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.62-1.10] in the Inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) analysis and (HR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.64-1.16) in the PSM analysis. However, tocilizumab was associated with an increased rate of extubation (33.6%) compared to the control arm (11.9%); subdistributional hazards (SHR) = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.86-5.16). CONCLUSIONS: Although tocilizumab was not found to be effective in reducing mortality, extubation rate while on mechanical ventilation was higher among tocilizumab treated group.