Clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), increases thrombotic risk in hospitalised patients. The rate of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. The role of heparin, frequently used in the management of hospitalised patients, also needs to be clarified. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin given at prophylactic or therapeutic dose in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and evaluated its role in the development of disease in terms of mortality, and incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to five different wards (one intensive care unit, 2 sub-intensive care units, and 2 general infectious disease units) of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Naples, Italy, between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Over a median time of 17 days (IQR 11-25), enoxaparin was given to 90/141 patients (63.8%) of whom 65 took a prophylactic and 25 a therapeutic dose. We documented 14 episodes of thrombosis (9.9%); almost all were cases of pulmonary embolism. No significant difference in terms of thromboembolic prevention was found between those patients not receiving anticoagulants and those on prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. Five episodes of major bleeding occurred (3.5%); therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was associated with a greater bleeding risk than prophylactic dose (p=0.002). During follow-up, 31 patients (22%) died; these were mostly elderly men with two or more comorbidities at admission. No advantages of enoxaparin, either as prophylaxis or at high doses, in terms of mortality were observed. At multivariate analysis, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high total bilirubin and fasting hyperglycemia were independently associated with a higher mortality. DISCUSSION: We did not observe advantages in terms of either thromboembolic prevention or mortality of enoxaparin, which however was more frequently used in patients with more severe disease. Prophylactic enoxaparin was not seen to be associated with bleeding risk.

Clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), increases thrombotic risk in hospitalised patients. The rate of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. The role of heparin, frequently used in the management of hospitalised patients, also needs to be clarified. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin given at prophylactic or therapeutic dose in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and evaluated its role in the development of disease in terms of mortality, and incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to five different wards (one intensive care unit, 2 sub-intensive care units, and 2 general infectious disease units) of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Naples, Italy, between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Over a median time of 17 days (IQR 11-25), enoxaparin was given to 90/141 patients (63.8%) of whom 65 took a prophylactic and 25 a therapeutic dose. We documented 14 episodes of thrombosis (9.9%); almost all were cases of pulmonary embolism. No significant difference in terms of thromboembolic prevention was found between those patients not receiving anticoagulants and those on prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. Five episodes of major bleeding occurred (3.5%); therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was associated with a greater bleeding risk than prophylactic dose (p=0.002). During follow-up, 31 patients (22%) died; these were mostly elderly men with two or more comorbidities at admission. No advantages of enoxaparin, either as prophylaxis or at high doses, in terms of mortality were observed. At multivariate analysis, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high total bilirubin and fasting hyperglycaemia were independently associated with a higher mortality. DISCUSSION: We did not observe advantages in terms of either thromboembolic prevention or mortality of enoxaparin, which however was more frequently used in patients with more severe disease. Prophylactic enoxaparin was not seen to be associated with bleeding risk.

Multidrug-Resistant Infections and Outcome of Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Single Center Experience.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the drivers of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infection development in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its impact on patient outcome. Methods: Retrospective analysis on data from 32 consecutive patients with COVID-19, admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) from March to May 2020. Outcomes considered were MDR infection and ICU mortality. Results: Fifty percent of patients developed an MDR infection during ICU stay after a median time of 8 [4-11] days. Most common MDR pathogens were carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii, causing bloodstream infections and pneumonia. MDR infections were linked to a higher length of ICU stay (p = 0.002), steroid therapy (p = 0.011), and associated with a lower ICU mortality (odds ratio: 0.439, 95% confidence interval: 0.251-0.763; p < 0.001). Low-dose aspirin intake was associated with both MDR infection (p = 0.043) and survival (p = 0.015). Among MDR patients, mortality was related with piperacillin-tazobactam use (p = 0.035) and an earlier onset of MDR infection (p = 0.042). Conclusions: MDR infections were a common complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients at our center. MDR risk was higher among those dwelling longer in the ICU and receiving steroids. However, MDR infections were not associated with a worse outcome.

Cardiac sequelae after coronavirus disease 2019 recovery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been implicated in a wide spectrum of cardiac manifestations following the acute phase of the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the range of cardiac sequelae after COVID-19 recovery. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus (inception through 17 February 2021) and Google scholar (2019 through 17 February 2021). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective and retrospective studies, case reports and case series. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients assessed for cardiac manifestations after COVID-19 recovery. EXPOSURE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed by PCR. METHODS: Systematic review. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (fifteen prospective cohort, seven case reports, five cross-sectional, four case series, three retrospective cohort and one ambidirectional cohort) evaluating cardiac sequelae in 52 609 patients were included. Twenty-nine studies used objective cardiac assessments, mostly cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in 16 studies, echocardiography in 15, electrocardiography (ECG) in 16 and cardiac biomarkers in 18. Most studies had a fair risk of bias. The median time from diagnosis/recovery to cardiac assessment was 48 days (1-180 days). Common short-term cardiac abnormalities (<3 months) included increased T1 (proportion: 30%), T2 (16%), pericardial effusion (15%) and late gadolinium enhancement (11%) on CMR, with symptoms such as chest pain (25%) and dyspnoea (36%). In the medium term (3-6 months), common changes included reduced left ventricular global longitudinal strain (30%) and late gadolinium enhancement (10%) on CMR, diastolic dysfunction (40%) on echocardiography and elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (18%). In addition, COVID-19 survivors had higher risk (risk ratio 3; 95% CI 2.7-3.2) of developing heart failure, arrythmias and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 appears to be associated with persistent/de novo cardiac injury after recovery, particularly subclinical myocardial injury in the earlier phase and diastolic dysfunction later. Larger well-designed and controlled studies with baseline assessments are needed to better measure the extent of cardiac injury and its clinical impact.

Effect of immunosuppression maintenance in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of continuing immune suppressive therapy in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data on 202 SOTR with COVID-19, published as case reports or case series. We extracted clinical, hemato-chemical, imaging, treatment, and outcome data. RESULTS: Most patients were kidney recipients (61.9%), males (68.8%), with median age of 57 years. The majority was on tacrolimus (73.5%) and mycophenolate (65.8%). Mortality was 18.8%, but an equal proportion was still hospitalized at last follow up. Immune suppressive therapy was withheld in 77.2% of patients, either partially or completely. Tacrolimus was continued in 50%. One third of survivors that continued immunosuppressants were on dual therapy plus steroids. None of those who continued immunosuppressants developed critical COVID-19 disease. Age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1-1.11, P = .001) and lopinavir/ritonavir use (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.2-8.5, P = .013) were independent predictors of mortality while immunosuppression maintenance (OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.008-0.558, P = .012) and tacrolimus continuation (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7, P = .013) were independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that maintaining immune suppression might be safe in SOTR with moderate and severe COVID-19. Specifically, receiving tacrolimus could be beneficial for COVID-19 SOTR. Because of the quality of the available evidence, no definitive guidance on how to manage SOTR with COVID-19 can be derived from our data.