Comparison of safety and efficacy between therapeutic or intermediate versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thrombosis in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections often have macrovascular or microvascular thrombosis and inflammation, which are known to be associated with a poor prognosis. Heparin has been hypothesized that administration of heparin with treatment dose rather than prophylactic dose for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Studies comparing therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation with prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients were eligible. Mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding were the primary outcomes. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase were searched up to July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to disease severity. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,678 patients and four cohort studies with 1,080 patients were included in this review. In the RCTs, the therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was associated with significant reductions in the occurrence of thromboembolic events (5 studies, n=4,664; relative risk [RR], 0.72; P=0.01), and a significant increase in bleeding events (5 studies, n=4,667; RR, 1.88; P=0.004). In the moderate patients, therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was more beneficial than prophylactic anticoagulation in terms of thromboembolic events, but showed significantly higher bleeding events. In the severe patients, the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in the therapeutic or intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that prophylactic anticoagulant treatment should be used in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection groups. Further studies are needed to determine more individualized anticoagulation guidance for all COVID-19 patients.

Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. METHODS: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. RESULTS: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3-4 months. CONCLUSION: We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media. Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.

Efficacy and safety of prone position in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups. CONCLUSION: For non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Early intubation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the timing of the application of mechanical ventilation among patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is insufficient. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early intubation compared to late intubation in patients with severe and critical COVID-19. METHODS: For this study, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases as well as one Korean domestic database on July 15, 2021. We updated the search monthly from September 10, 2021 to February 10, 2022. Studies that compared early intubation with late intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated as measures of effect using the random-effects model for the pooled estimates of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), hospital LOS, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the definition of early intubation and the index time. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized studies 2.0. RESULTS: Of the 1523 records identified, 12 cohort studies, involving 2843 patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (8 studies, n = 795; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10, P = 0.32, I2 = 33%), LOS in the ICU (9 studies, n = 978; MD -1.77 days, 95% CI -4.61 to 1.07 days, P = 0.22, I2 = 78%), MV duration (9 studies, n = 1,066; MD -0.03 day, 95% CI -1.79 to 1.72 days, P = 0.97, I2 = 49%), ICU-free days (1 study, n = 32; 0 day vs. 0 day; P = 0.39), and ventilator-free days (4 studies, n = 344; MD 0.94 day, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.43 days, P = 0.74, I2 = 54%) between the early and late intubation groups. However, the early intubation group had significant advantage in terms of hospital LOS (6 studies, n = 738; MD -4.32 days, 95% CI -7.20 to -1.44 days, P = 0.003, I2 = 45%). CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant difference in both primary and secondary outcomes between the early intubation and late intubation groups. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 16 February, 2022 (registration number CRD42022311122).

Prognostic Factors for Pulmonary Fibrosis Following Pneumonia in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Study.

The frequency and clinical manifestation of lung fibrosis accompanied by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are not well-established. We aimed to identify the factors attributed to post-COVID-19 fibrosis. This single-center prospective study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia from 12 April to 22 October 2021 in the Republic of Korea. The primary outcome was the presence of pulmonary fibrosis on a CT scan 3 months after discharge; the fibrosis risk was estimated by a multiple logistic regression. The mean patient age was 55.03 ± 12.32 (range 27-85) years; 65 (66.3%) were men and 33 (33.7%) were women. The age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, lactate dehydrogenase level, aspartate aminotransferase level, and Krebs von den Lungen-6 level were significantly higher and the albumin level and the saturation of the peripheral oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) ratio were significantly lower in the fibrosis group than in the non-fibrosis group; the need for initial oxygen support was also greater in the fibrosis group. An older age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.21) and a lower initial SpO2/FiO2 ratio (AOR 7.17; 95% CI 1.72-29.91) were significant independent risk factors for pulmonary fibrosis after COVID-19 pneumonia. An older age and a low initial SpO2/FiO2 ratio were crucial in predicting pulmonary fibrosis after COVID-19 pneumonia.

Beneficial Effect of Statins in COVID-19-Related Outcomes-Brief Report: A National Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Although statins are widely prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, there are concerns about the safety of their use in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), since statins increase the expression of ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2). This study aimed to disclose the association between statins and 60-day COVID-19 mortality. Approach and Results: All patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in this study from January 19 to April 16, 2020, in Korea. We evaluated the association between the use of statins and COVID-19-related mortality in the overall and the nested 1:2 propensity score-matched study. Furthermore, a comparison of the hazard ratio for death was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia between January and June 2019 in Korea. The median age of the 10 448 COVID-19 patients was 45 years. Statins were prescribed in 533 (5.1%) patients. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, Cox regression showed a significant decrease in hazard ratio associated with the use of statins (hazard ratio, 0.637 [95% CI, 0.425-0.953]; P=0.0283). Moreover, on comparing the hazard ratio between COVID-19 patients and the retrospective cohort of hospitalized pneumonia patients, the use of statins showed similar benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The use of statins correlates significantly with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19, consistent with the findings in patients with pneumonia. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Different therapeutic associations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with usual pneumonia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. METHODS: All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. RESULTS: Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. CONCLUSION: Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.