ABSTRACT
Background: Antithrombotic treatment, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH), has been proposed as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to lower diffuse intravascular clotting activation. However, it is unclear whether prophylactic or therapeutic doses have similar efficacy in reducing mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020179955) and meta-analysis including observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of heparins (either LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux) in COVID-19 patients. Heparin treatment was compared to no anticoagulation. A subgroup analysis on prophylactic or therapeutic doses compared to no anticoagulation was performed. Prophylactic dose was also compared to full dose anticoagulation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were major bleeding and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: 33 studies (31 observational, 2 RCT) were included for a total overall population of 32,688 patients. Of these, 21,723 (66.5%) were on heparins. 31 studies reported data on all-cause mortality, showing that both prophylactic and full dose reduced mortality (pooled Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.69 and HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.66, respectively). However, the full dose was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.14-3.53) compared to prophylactic dose. Finally, LOS was evaluated in 3 studies; no difference was observed between patients with and without heparins (0.98, -3.87, 5.83 days). Conclusion: Heparin at both full and prophylactic dose is effective in reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, compared to no treatment. However, full dose was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42020179955.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals faced increasing pressure, where people living with HIV risked to either acquire SARS-CoV-2 and to interrupt the HIV continuum of care. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study. We compared the numbers of medical visits performed, antiretroviral drugs dispensed and the number of new HIV diagnosis and of hospitalizations in a cohort of people living with HIV (PLWH) followed by the Spedali Civili of Brescia between the bimester of the COVID-19 pandemic peak and the bimester of October-November 2019. Data were retrieved from administrative files and from paper and electronic clinical charts. Categorical variables were described using frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables were described using mean, median, and interquartile range (IQR) values. Means for continuous variables were compared using Student's t-tests and the Mann-Whitney test. Proportions for categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test. RESULTS: As of December 31st, 2019, a total of 3875 PLWH were followed in our clinic. Mean age was 51.4 ± 13 years old, where 28% were females and 18.8% non-Italian. Overall, 98.9% were on ART (n = 3834), 93% were viro-suppressed. A total of 1217 and 1162 patients had their visit scheduled at our out-patient HIV clinic during the two bimesters of 2019 and 2020, respectively. Comparing the two periods, we observed a raise of missed visits from 5 to 8% (p < 0.01), a reduction in the number of new HIV diagnosis from 6.4 in 2019 to 2.5 per month in 2020 (p = 0.01), a drop in ART dispensation and an increase of hospitalized HIV patients due to COVID-19. ART regimens including protease inhibitors (PIs) had a smaller average drop than ART not including PIs (16.6 vs 21.6%, p < 0.05). Whether this may be due to the perception of a possible efficacy of PIs on COVID19 is not known. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlights the importance of a resilient healthcare system and the need to implement new strategies in order to guarantee the continuum of HIV care even in the context of emergency.