ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has left a significant impact on the world's health, economic and political systems; as of November 20, 2020, more than 57 million people have been infected worldwide, with over 1.3 million deaths. While the global spotlight is currently focused on combating this pandemic through means ranging from finding a treatment among existing therapeutic agents to inventing a vaccine that can aid in halting the further loss of life. AIM: To collect all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published related to COVID-19 to better identify available evidence, highlight gaps in knowledge, and elucidate further meta-analyses and umbrella reviews that are yet to be performed. METHODS: We explored studies based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the key-terms, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS virus, coronavirus disease, COVID-19, and SARS coronavirus-2. The included studies were extracted from Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. The publication timeframe of included studies ranged between January 01, 2020, to October 30, 2020. Studies that were published in languages other than English were not considered for this systematic review. The finalized full-text articles are freely accessible in the public domain. RESULTS: Searching Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases resulted in 1906, 669, and 19 results, respectively, that comprised 2594 studies. 515 duplicates were subsequently removed, leaving 2079 studies. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 860 results were excluded for being a review article, scope review, rapid review, panel review, or guideline that produced a total of 1219 studies. After screening articles were categorized, the included articles were put into main groups of clinical presentation, epidemiology, screening and diagnosis, severity assessment, special populations, and treatment. Subsequently, there was a second subclassification into the following groups: gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, stroke, thrombosis, anosmia and dysgeusia, ocular manifestations, nephrology, cutaneous manifestations, D-dimer, lymphocyte, anticoagulation, antivirals, convalescent plasma, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, technology, diabetes mellitus, obesity, pregnancy, children, mental health, smoking, cancer, and transplant. CONCLUSION: Among the included articles, it is clear that further research is needed regarding treatment options and vaccines. With more studies, data will be less heterogeneous, and statistical analysis can be better applied to provide more robust clinical evidence. This study was not designed to give recommendations regarding the management of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe hypercoagulability. There is currently limited evidence supporting the routine use of therapeutic anticoagulation in the setting of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the incidence of thromboembolic events in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with an unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusion versus prophylactic dose anticoagulation. Secondary objectives included exploration of the efficacy and safety of an UFH infusion through the evaluation of organ function and incidence of minor and major bleeding. METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study with propensity score matching of COVID-19 patients who received an UFH infusion targeting an aPTT between 40 and 60 seconds. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in this study. There was no difference in the composite of thromboembolic events comprised of venous thromboembolism, arterial thrombosis, and catheter-related thrombosis between the UFH and control group (17.9% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.19). There was a significant increase in median D-dimer concentrations from day 1 to day 7 in the control group (475 ng/mL [291-999] vs. 10820 ng/mL [606-21033], P = 0.04). Patients treated with UFH had a higher incidence of minor bleeding (35.7% vs. 0%, P < 0.005) and required more units of packed red blood cell transfusion (0.8 units ± 1.6 vs. 0 units, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Continuous infusion of UFH for patients with COVID-19 infection did not decrease the overall incidence of thromboembolic complications. UFH was associated with stabilization of D-dimer concentrations and increased rates of minor bleeding and transfusions.