Clinically stable covid-19 patients presenting to acute unscheduled episodic care venues have increased risk of hospitalization: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessment for risks associated with acute stable COVID-19 is important to optimize clinical trial enrollment and target patients for scarce therapeutics. To assess whether healthcare system engagement location is an independent predictor of outcomes we performed a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention trial. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B trial that was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and August 2021. Participants were enrolled through acute unscheduled episodic care (AUEC) enrollment location (emergency department, or urgent care clinic visit) compared to minimal contact (MC) enrollment (electronic contact from test center lists of positive patients).We report the primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalizations, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic arterial thromboembolism, or death among stable outpatients stratified by enrollment setting, AUEC versus MC. A propensity score for AUEC enrollment was created, and Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to compare the primary outcome by enrollment location. RESULTS: Among the 657 ACTIV-4B patients randomized, 533 (81.1%) with known enrollment setting data were included in this analysis, 227 from AUEC settings and 306 from MC settings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from COVID test, age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and body mass index were associated with AUEC enrollment. Irrespective of trial treatment allocation, patients enrolled at an AUEC setting were 10-times more likely to suffer from the adjudicated primary outcome, 7.9% vs. 0.7%; p < 0.001, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Upon Cox regression analysis adjustment patients enrolled at an AUEC setting remained at significant risk of the primary composite outcome, HR 3.40 (95% CI 1.46, 7.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinically stable COVID-19 presenting to an AUEC enrollment setting represent a population at increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis complications, hospitalization for cardiopulmonary events, or death, when adjusted for other risk factors, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Future outpatient therapeutic trials and clinical therapeutic delivery programs of clinically stable COVID-19 patients may focus on inclusion of higher-risk patient populations from AUEC engagement locations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

A Review of Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants and Their Use in Solid Organ Transplantation.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has increased dramatically since their introduction because of the growing evidence of proven efficacy and enhanced safety compared with warfarin and the low-molecular-weight heparins in the general population. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of quality data regarding the safety and efficacy of the DOACs in patients awaiting organ transplant and those who received a solid organ transplant. This review aims to evaluate the available literature and considerations regarding anticoagulation use in transplant recipients, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative DOAC use.

COVID-19 vaccination and venous thromboembolism risk in older veterans.

Introduction: It is important for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine providers, vaccine recipients, and those not yet vaccinated to be well informed about vaccine side effects. We sought to estimate the risk of post-vaccination venous thromboembolism (VTE) to meet this need. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to quantify excess VTE risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in US veterans age 45 and older using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Surveillance Tool. The vaccinated cohort received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at least 60 days prior to 3/06/22 (N = 855,686). The control group was those not vaccinated (N = 321,676). All patients were COVID-19 tested at least once before vaccination with a negative test. The main outcome was VTE documented by ICD10-CM codes. Results: Vaccinated persons had a VTE rate of 1.3755 (CI: 1.3752-1.3758) per thousand, which was 0.1 percent over the baseline rate of 1.3741 (CI: 1.3738-1.3744) per thousand in the unvaccinated patients, or 1.4 excess cases per 1,000,000. All vaccine types showed a minimal increased rate of VTE (rate of VTE per 1000 was 1.3761 (CI: 1.3754-1.3768) for Janssen; 1.3757 (CI: 1.3754-1.3761) for Pfizer, and for Moderna, the rate was 1.3757 (CI: 1.3748-1.3877)). The tiny differences in rates comparing either Janssen or Pfizer vaccine to Moderna were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Adjusting for age, sex, BMI, 2-year Elixhauser score, and race, the vaccinated group had a minimally higher relative risk of VTE as compared to controls (1.0009927 CI: 1.007673-1.0012181; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The results provide reassurance that there is only a trivial increased risk of VTE with the current US SARS-CoV-2 vaccines used in veterans older than age 45. This risk is significantly less than VTE risk among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The risk-benefit ratio favors vaccination, given the VTE rate, mortality, and morbidity associated with COVID-19 infection.

Thrombosis-Related Loss of Arterial Lines in the First Wave of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with severe respiratory distress requiring intensive care unit (ICU)-level care. Such care often requires placement of an arterial line for monitoring of pulmonary disease progression, hemodynamics, and laboratory tests. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, experienced physicians anecdotally reported multiple attempts, decreased insertion durations, and greater need for replacement of arterial lines in patients with COVID-19 due to persistent thrombosis. Because invasive procedures in patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk for caregiver infection, better defining difficulties in maintaining arterial lines in COVID-19 patients is important. We sought to explore the association between COVID-19 infection and arterial line thrombosis in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this primary exploratory analysis, a multivariable Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to retrospectively estimate the association between critically ill COVID-19 (versus sepsis/acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]) patients and the risk of arterial line removal for thrombosis (with arterial line removal for any other reason treated as a competing risk). As a sensitivity analysis, we compared the number of arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days between critically ill COVID-19 and sepsis/ARDS patients using multivariable negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We retrospectively identified 119 patients and 200 arterial line insertions in patients with COVID-19 and 54 patients and 68 arterial line insertions with non-COVID ARDS. Using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model, we found the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for arterial line clot to be 2.18 (1.06-4.46) for arterial lines placed in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 sepsis/ARDS patients (P = .034). Patients with COVID-19 had 36.3 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days compared to 19.1 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days in patients without COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI], 1.78 [0.94-3.39]; P = .078). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that arterial line complications due to thrombosis are more likely in COVID-19 patients and supports the need for further research on the association between COVID-19 and arterial line dysfunction requiring replacement.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and patients with cancer.

Vaccines to combat SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 pandemic were quickly developed due to significant and combined efforts by the scientific community, government agencies, and private sector pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Following vaccine development, which took less than a year to accomplish, randomized placebo controlled clinical trials enrolled almost 100,000 people, demonstrating efficacy and no major safety signals. Vaccination programs were started, but shortly thereafter a small number of patients with a constellation of findings including thrombosis in unusual locations, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer and often low fibrinogen led another intense and concentrated scientific effort to understand this syndrome. It was recognized that this occurred within a short time following administration of adenoviral vector SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Critical to the rapid understanding of this syndrome was prompt communication among clinicians and scientists and exchange of knowledge. Now known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome (VITT), progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology of the syndrome, with the development of diagnostic criteria, and most importantly therapeutic strategies needed to effectively treat this rare complication of adenoviral vector vaccination. This review will focus on the current understanding of the pathophysiology of VITT, the findings that affected patients present with, and the rational for therapies, including for patients with cancer, as prompt recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of this syndrome has resulted in a dramatic decrease in associated mortality.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data. RESULTS: Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%-98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%-99.7%). CONCLUSION: A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.

Good practice statements for antithrombotic therapy in the management of COVID-19: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH.

Despite the emergence of high quality randomized trial data with the use of antithrombotic agents to reduce the risk of thromboembolism, end-organ failure, and possibly mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), questions still remain as to optimal patient selection for these strategies, the use of antithrombotics in outpatient settings and in-hospital settings (including critical care units), thromboprophylaxis in special patient populations, and the management of acute thrombosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In October 2021, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) formed a multidisciplinary and international panel of content experts, two patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on treatment with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for COVID-19 patients. The ISTH Guideline panel discussed additional topics to be well suited to a non-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for Good Practice Statements (GPS) to support good clinical care in the antithrombotic management of COVID-19 patients in various clinical settings. The GPS panel agreed on 17 GPS: 3 in the outpatient (pre-hospital) setting, 12 in the hospital setting both in non-critical care (ward) as well as intensive care unit settings, and 2 in the immediate post-hospital discharge setting based on limited evidence or expert opinion that supports net clinical benefit in enacting the statements provided. The antithrombotic therapies discussed in these GPS should be available in low- and middle-income countries.

Use of novel antithrombotic agents for COVID-19: Systematic summary of ongoing randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with macro- and micro-thromboses, which are triggered by endothelial cell activation, coagulopathy, and uncontrolled inflammatory response. Conventional antithrombotic agents are under assessment in dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with COVID-19, with preliminary results not demonstrating benefit in several studies. OBJECTIVES: Given the possibility that more novel agents with antithrombotic effects may have a potential utility for management of patients with COVID-19, we assessed ongoing RCTs including these agents with their potential mechanism of action in this population. METHODS: We searched clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify RCTs of novel antithrombotic agents in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Based on a systematic literature search, 27 RCTs with 10 novel antithrombotic agents (including nafamostat, dociparstat, rNAPc2, and defibrotide) were identified. The results from these trials have not been disseminated yet. The studied drugs in the ongoing or completed RCTs include agents affecting the coagulation cascade, drugs affecting endothelial activation, and mixed acting agents. Their postulated antithrombotic mechanisms of action and their potential impact on patient management are summarized. CONCLUSION: Some novel antithrombotic agents have pleiotropic anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects, which may help reduce the viral load or fibrosis, and improve oxygenation. Results from ongoing RCTs will elucidate their actual role in the management of patients with COVID-19.

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

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Harnessing Twitter to empower scientific engagement and communication: The ISTH 2020 virtual congress experience.

As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), like many societies around the world, canceled their in-person hematology congress planned for Milan, Italy, in July 2020. As a result, the first virtual ISTH congress in the organisation's 51-year history was delivered, inviting free registration from across the globe. As part of the social media support, marketing, and scientific dissemination efforts for the virtual congress, the ISTH assembled a group of official Twitter Ambassadors, which represented the broad and diverse ISTH community. Ambassadors were tasked to tweet daily throughout the congress and to share their commentary on the hematology research being presented with the "#ISTH2020" hashtag. Ambassadors were also supported by Twitter activities from the two official ISTH-affiliated journals: the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (JTH) and Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis (RPTH). In this forum and through the Twitter ambassadors' lens, we present the Twitter Ambassadors' experience, reflect on the impact of social media on the ISTH 2020 congress, and share this experience with the wider scientific community. Specifically, we report on the role of Twitter communication for virtual meetings, discuss the pros and cons of the virtual congress, and offer Twitter-related recommendations for future virtual or blended congresses. We conclude that the ISTH Twitter Ambassador program broadened social media engagement and offers a novel route to improve social connectivity in the virtual research congress setting.

Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has resulted in global healthcare crises and strained health resources. As the population of patients recovering from COVID-19 grows, it is paramount to establish an understanding of the healthcare issues surrounding them. COVID-19 is now recognized as a multi-organ disease with a broad spectrum of manifestations. Similarly to post-acute viral syndromes described in survivors of other virulent coronavirus epidemics, there are increasing reports of persistent and prolonged effects after acute COVID-19. Patient advocacy groups, many members of which identify themselves as long haulers, have helped contribute to the recognition of post-acute COVID-19, a syndrome characterized by persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the current literature on post-acute COVID-19, its pathophysiology and its organ-specific sequelae. Finally, we discuss relevant considerations for the multidisciplinary care of COVID-19 survivors and propose a framework for the identification of those at high risk for post-acute COVID-19 and their coordinated management through dedicated COVID-19 clinics.