Intentional Rounding versus Standard of Care for Patients Hospitalised in Internal Medicine Wards: Results from a Cluster-Randomised Nation-Based Study.

The aim of the study was to explore the effects of Intentional Rounding, a regular-based proactive patient monitoring, on falls and pressure ulcers in internal medicine units. This is a cluster-randomised controlled study, where units were assigned (1:1) to Intentional Rounding (intervention group) or Standard of Care (control group). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of falls and new pressure ulcers. These events were considered separately as secondary endpoints, together with the number of bell calls and the evaluation of patient satisfaction. Primary analyses were carried out on the modified intention-to-treat population (hospitalisation of at least 10 days). Recruitment occurred between October 2019 and March 2020, at which time the study was prematurely closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrolment totalled 1822 patients at 26 sites; 779 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group had a lower risk of falls (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78; p = 0.03). There were no statistical differences in new pressure ulcers or the cumulative incidence of both adverse events. Mean bell calls for each patient were 15.4 ± 24.1 in the intervention group and 13.7 ± 20.5 in the control group (p = 0.38). Additionally, patient satisfaction in the intervention group was almost at the maximum level. Our study supports the usefulness of Intentional Rounding in a complex and vulnerable population such as that hospitalised in internal medicine units.

Correction: Di Micco et al. Clinical Differences between COVID-19 and a COVID-like Syndrome. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2519.

Incorrect Affiliation [...].

Clinical Differences between COVID-19 and a COVID-Like Syndrome.

COVID-19 is an infection due to SARS-CoV-2; this virus has been identified as the cause of the present pandemic. Several typical characteristics are present in this infection, in particular pneumonia with possible lung failure, but atypical clinical presentations are being described daily by physicians around the world. Ground-glass opacities with pneumonia are the most common and dangerous presentations of the COVID-19 disease, and they are usually associated with positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) tests with detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. Compared to the general population, hospital workers have been at a greater risk of infection ever since the first patients were hospitalized. However, hospital workers have also been reported as having COVID-like symptoms despite repeated negative swab tests but having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with serological tests. We can postulate that a COVID-like syndrome is possible, in particular in hospital workers, that is characterized by symptoms similar to those of COVID-19, but with repeated negative nasopharyngeal swabs. These repeated negative NSPs make the difference in daily clinical management with people that experienced a single false negative nasopharyngeal swab; furthermore, a clear clinical differentiation of these situations is still lacking in the literature. For this reason, here, we report our main findings from a cohort of patients with a COVID-like syndrome compared to a similar group affected by typical COVID-19.

Antithrombotic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Fondaparinux and Enoxaparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The FONDENOXAVID Study.

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 around the world, great attention has been paid to the effects of such antithrombotic drugs as heparinoids, because they have antiviral action in vitro and antithrombotic actions in vivo. We conducted a retrospective analysis in inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 on the anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects of enoxaparin and fondaparinux at prophylactic doses. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used patients with confirmed COVID-19 during the first months of the Italian outbreak from February 18 to April 30, 2020. Our aim was to compare clinical characteristics, prophylactic treatment, markers of inflammation, and thrombotic outcomes in inpatients positive for SARS-CoV2 during hospitalization associated with thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin (40 mg or 60 mg once daily) or fondaparinux (2.5 mg once daily). Statistical analysis was conducted with using MatLab R2016B and ad hoc functions. RESULTS: There were no significatant differences in clinical characteristics between patients that used enoxaparin or fondaparinux as thromboprophylaxis for SARS-CoV2. No differences were found in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels either, which were used as markers of inflammation during the infection at testing on admission and after 3 weeks.Significant differences in CRP, IL6, and LDH were found in patients after 21 days' treatment. DISCUSSION: Increased levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer in patients with confirmed COVID-19 have been reported in several studies. Our results showed that anti-inflammatory effects of fondaparinux and enoxaparin after 3 weeks of prophylactic treatment were similar when levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer were considered. Furthermore, levels of CRP showed a decrease in patients treated with enoxaparin and fondaparinux, although the decrease in the fondaparinux group seems to be more relevant.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 for clinical research operations in Italy: what have we learned and what can we apply in the future?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stressed the importance of health research as never before. In the specific domain of clinical research, the effort to rapidly find responses to health challenges and therapeutic hypotheses has highlighted the need for efficient, timely, ethically correct research. The guidelines published by the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco have shown that some useful changes are feasible: simple and rapid methods have been implemented to conduct clinical research in the emergency conditions of the pandemic, maintaining high levels of quality. In this perspective, four Italian scientific associations operating in clinical research have worked together to evaluate which measures, among the ones implemented during the pandemic, have been particularly significant and potentially effective under normal conditions or in case of emergencies, and that therefore will be useful in the future as well.

Resolution of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation in a Patient with COVID-19 and Associated Sepsis-Induced Neutropenia.

COVID-19 has been associated with a hypercoagulable state and thrombotic events. Venous thromboembolism has been the most commonly reported type of thrombosis but also arterial thrombosis and disseminated intravascular coagulation in inpatients have been described frequently in several clinical experiences. Patients with COVID-19, because of its tendency to induce leucopenia and overlapping of bacterial infection, may experience sudden disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), as in the case that we report here. However, early diagnosis and treatment may be associated with positive resolution of these severe complications.

Thromboprofilaxys With Fondaparinux vs. Enoxaparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Italian Observational Study.

Importance: The use of anticoagulant therapy with heparins decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Even if enoxaparin and fondaparinux have the same clinical indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention; to date, there are no data about the use of fondaparinux in terms of safety, effectiveness, and impact on clinical prognosis among COVID-19 patients. Objective: To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and clinical impact of VTE prophylaxis with fondaparinux and enoxaparin among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in internal medicine units. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective multicenter observation study, including consecutive symptomatic patients with laboratory-proven COVID-19 admitted to internal medicine units of five Italian hospitals from 15th February to 15th March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was the composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding; the primary effectiveness outcome was the composite of all events classified as pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. The secondary effectiveness outcome included acute respiratory distress syndrome and all-cause death. Results: Among 120 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the study, 74 were taking enoxaparin (4,000 or 6,000 units/day) and 46 fondaparinux (2.5 units/day). No statistically significant difference in demographic and laboratory and clinical characteristics between the two groups has been shown. During a median follow-up of 32 (interquartile range: 14-51) days, the cumulative incidence rates of VTE and bleeding events on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with heparins were 19% and 8%, respectively. The incidence of both VTE (6.5 vs. 13.5%; P = 0.36) and bleeding events (6.5 vs. 4.1%; P = 0.68) did not show a significant difference between COVID-19 patients on fondaparinux compared with those on enoxaparin therapy. The regression model for the risk of outcome events according to different VTE prophylaxis drugs did not show significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Although these results need confirmation by prospective studies including a larger population, our study provides preliminary evidence of a safe and efficacy use of fondaparinux for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Fondaparinux Use in Patients With COVID-19: A Preliminary Multicenter Real-World Experience.

The use of heparin has been shown to decrease the mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with fondaparinux versus enoxaparin among 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The incidence of pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-MB, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in-hospital mortality was compared between patients on fondaparinux versus enoxaparin therapy. The 2 groups were homogeneous for demographic, laboratory, and clinical characteristics. In a median follow-up of 28 (IQR: 12-45) days, no statistically significant difference in venous thromboembolism (14.5% vs. 5.3%; P = 0.20), MB and clinically relevant non-MB (3.2% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.76), ARDS (17.7% vs. 15.8%; P = 0.83), and in-hospital mortality (9.7% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.97) has been shown between the enoxaparin group versus the fondaparinux group. Our preliminary results support the hypothesis of a safe and effective use of fondaparinux among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in internal medicine units.

Blood Targets of Adjuvant Drugs Against COVID19.

While waiting for the vaccine and/or the best treatment for COVID19, several drugs have been identified as potential adjuvant drugs to counteract the viral action. Several drugs, in fact, have been suggested for their ancillary antiviral role. Viral proteases and peptidases, may interact with well-known drugs such as anticoagulants, antihypertensives, antiserotoninergics and immunomodulants. We here report a basic list of these drugs that include bioflavonoids, heparinoids, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, antiserotoninergics, and monoclonal antibodies against cytokines that may interact with the viral cycle.