Impact of thromboprophylaxis on hospital acquired thrombosis following discharge in patients admitted with COVID-19: Multicentre observational study in the UK.

Post-discharge thromboprophylaxis in patients admitted with COVID-19 remains controversial. We aimed to determine the impact of thromboprophylaxis on hospital acquired thrombosis (HAT) in patients (≥18 years) discharged following admission for COVID-19 in an observational study across 26 NHS Trusts in the UK (01.04.2020-31.12.2021). Overall, 8895 patients were included to the study: 971 patients were discharged with thromboprophylaxis and propensity score matched (PSM) with a desired ratio of 1:1, from patients discharged without thromboprophylaxis. Patients with heparin induced thrombocytopenia, major bleeding during admission and pregnant women were excluded. As expected from 1:1 PSM, no difference was observed in parameters between the two groups, including duration of hospital stay, except the thromboprophylaxis group had a significantly higher proportion who had received therapeutic dose anticoagulation during admission. There were no differences in the laboratory parameters especially D-dimers between the two groups at admission or discharge. Median duration of thromboprophylaxis following discharge from hospital was 4 weeks (1-8 weeks). No difference was found in HAT in patients discharged with TP versus no TP (1.3% vs. 0.92%, p = 0.52). Increasing age and smoking significantly increased the risk of HAT. Many patients in both cohorts had raised D-dimer at discharge but D-dimer was not associated with increased risk of HAT.

Tocilizumab Outcomes in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU and the Role of Non-Tocilizumab COVID-19-Specific Medical Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody proposed to manage cytokine release syndrome (CRS) associated with severe COVID-19. Previously published reports have shown that tocilizumab may improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, no precise data about the role of other medical therapeutics concurrently used for COVID-19 on this outcome have been published. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the overall outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received tocilizumab with the outcome of matched patients who did not receive tocilizumab while controlling for other confounders, including medical therapeutics for critically ill patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020, and October 31, 2020. Propensity-score matching was utilized to compare patients who received tocilizumab to patients who did not. In addition, the log-rank test was used to compare the 28 day hospital survival of patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the matched groups was performed to evaluate the impact of the remaining concurrent medical therapeutics that could not be excluded via matching 28 day hospital survival rates. The primary outcome measure was patients' overall 28 day hospital survival, and the secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay and ICU survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1470 unmatched patients were included, of whom 426 received tocilizumab. The total number of propensity-matched patients was 1278. Overall, 28 day hospital survival revealed a significant difference between the unmatched non-tocilizumab group (586; 56.1%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.016), and this difference increased even more in the propensity-matched analysis between the non-tocilizumab group (466.7; 54.6%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.005). The matching model successfully matched the two groups' common medical therapeutics used to treat COVID-19. Two medical therapeutics remained significantly different, favoring the tocilizumab group. A multivariate logistic regression was performed for the 28 day hospital survival in the propensity-matched patients. It showed that neither steroids (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75-1.53)) (p = 0.697) nor favipiravir (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.61-1.9)) (p = 0.799) remained as a predictor for an increase in 28 day survival. CONCLUSION: The tocilizumab treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU improved the overall 28 day hospital survival, which might not be influenced by the concurrent use of other COVID-19 medical therapeutics, although further research is needed to confirm this.

Practice of Awake Prone Positioning in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoAcT-COVID Study.

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was 'treatment failure', a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Among High-Risk Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 B.1.617.2 (Delta Variant) Infection.

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness of neutralizing casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody (Cas-Imd mAb) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among high-risk patients may inform the response to future SARS-CoV-2 variants. Methods: This study covers an observational retrospective data analysis in Banner Health Care System sites, mainly in Arizona. During the study period, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was between 95% and 100%. Of 29 635 patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 1 August 2021 and 30 October 2021, in the Banner Health Care System, the study cohort was split into 4213 adult patients who received Cas-Imd mAb (1200 mg) treatment compared to a PS-matched 4213 untreated patients. The primary outcomes were the incidence of all-cause hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality within 30 days of Cas-Imd mAb administration or Delta variant infection. Results: Compared to the PS-matched untreated cohort, the Cas-Imd mAb cohort had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization (4.2% vs 17.6%; difference in percentages, -13.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -14.7 to -12.0]; P < .001), ICU admission (0.3% vs 2.8%; difference, -2.4 [95% CI, -3.0 to -1.9]; P < .001), and mortality (0.2% vs 2.0%; difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.3]; P < .001) within 30 days. The Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with lower rate of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22 [95% CI, .19-.26]; P < .001) and mortality (HR, 0.11 [95% CI, .06-.21]; P < .001). Conclusions: Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with a lower hospitalization rate, ICU admission, and mortality within 30 days among patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.