COVID-19 and Its Implications for Thrombosis and Anticoagulation.

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, acute limb ischemia, and isolated strokes, all in the face of prophylactic and even therapeutic anticoagulation, are features of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coagulopathy. It seems well established at this time that a COVID-19 patient deemed sick enough to be hospitalized, should receive at least prophylactic dose anticoagulation. However, should some hospitalized patients have dosage escalation to intermediate dose? Should some be considered for full-dose anticoagulation without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anticoagulation be monitored? Should patients receive postdischarge anticoagulation and with what medication and for how long? What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? Is antiphospholipid antibody part of this syndrome? What is the significance of isolated ischemic stroke and limb ischemia in this disorder and how does this interface with the rest of the clinical and laboratory features of this disorder? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Impact and role of pulmonary embolism response teams in venous thromboembolism associated with COVID-19.

Venous thromboembolism associated with COVID-19, particularly acute pulmonary embolism, may represent a challenging and complex clinical scenario. The benefits of having a multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) can be important during such a pandemic. The aim of PERT in the care of such patients is to provide fast, appropriate, multidisciplinary, team-based approach, with the common goal to tailor the best therapeutic decision making, prioritizing always optimal patient care, especially given lack of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in the setting of COVID-19, which potentially confers a significant prothrombotic state. Herein, we would like to briefly emphasize the importance and potential critical role of PERT in the care of patients in which these two devastating illnesses are present together.

Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Tool to Rule Out COVID-19 Among Adults in the Emergency Department Using Routine Blood Tests: A Large, Multicenter, Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional diagnosis of COVID-19 with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing (hereafter, PCR) is associated with prolonged time to diagnosis and significant costs to run the test. The SARS-CoV-2 virus might lead to characteristic patterns in the results of widely available, routine blood tests that could be identified with machine learning methodologies. Machine learning modalities integrating findings from these common laboratory test results might accelerate ruling out COVID-19 in emergency department patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop (ie, train and internally validate with cross-validation techniques) and externally validate a machine learning model to rule out COVID 19 using only routine blood tests among adults in emergency departments. METHODS: Using clinical data from emergency departments (EDs) from 66 US hospitals before the pandemic (before the end of December 2019) or during the pandemic (March-July 2020), we included patients aged ≥20 years in the study time frame. We excluded those with missing laboratory results. Model training used 2183 PCR-confirmed cases from 43 hospitals during the pandemic; negative controls were 10,000 prepandemic patients from the same hospitals. External validation used 23 hospitals with 1020 PCR-confirmed cases and 171,734 prepandemic negative controls. The main outcome was COVID 19 status predicted using same-day routine laboratory results. Model performance was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve as well as sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Of 192,779 patients included in the training, external validation, and sensitivity data sets (median age decile 50 [IQR 30-60] years, 40.5% male [78,249/192,779]), AUROC for training and external validation was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.92). Using a risk score cutoff of 1.0 (out of 100) in the external validation data set, the model achieved sensitivity of 95.9% and specificity of 41.7%; with a cutoff of 2.0, sensitivity was 92.6% and specificity was 59.9%. At the cutoff of 2.0, the NPVs at a prevalence of 1%, 10%, and 20% were 99.9%, 98.6%, and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model developed with multicenter clinical data integrating commonly collected ED laboratory data demonstrated high rule-out accuracy for COVID-19 status, and might inform selective use of PCR-based testing.

Methodological Issues and Controversies in COVID-19 Coagulopathy: A Tale of Two Storms.

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in ECMO devices, all in the face of prophylactic and sometimes even therapeutic anti-coagulation, are frequent features of COVID-19 coagulopathy. The trials available to guide clinicians are methodologically limited. There are several unresolved controversies including 1) Should all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receive prophylactic anti-coagulation? 2) Which patients should have their dosage escalated to intermediate dose? 3) Which patients should be considered for full-dose anti-coagulation even without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anti-coagulation be monitored? 4) Should patients receive post-discharge anti-coagulation? 5) What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? 6) Is anti-phospholipid anti-body part of this syndrome? 7) How do the different treatments for this disease impact the coagulation issues? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.