Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Deep vein thrombosis in noncritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia: deep vein thrombosis in nonintensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolic events have been one of the main causes of mortality among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The aim of our study was to describe the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and correlate such observations with the thromboprophylaxis received. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 67 patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia. The diagnosis was confirmed using polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal specimens. The deep veins were examined using compression duplex ultrasonography with the transducer on B-mode. The patients were separated into two groups for statistical analysis: those receiving low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis and those receiving intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment. Risk analysis and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Of the 67 patients, 57 were included in the present study after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 49.1% were women, and the patient mean age was 71.3 years. All 57 patients had undergone compression duplex ultrasonography. Of these 57 patients, 6 were diagnosed with DVT, for an in-hospital rate of DVT in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia of 10.5%. All the patients who had presented with DVT had been receiving low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis. The patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation treatment had a greater risk of DVT (16.21%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.28; P = .056) compared with those receiving intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment. We also found a protective factor for DVT in the intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.46; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Noncritically ill, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have a high risk of DVT despite receipt of correct, standard thromboprophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at Veterans Health Administration Hospitals.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at heightened risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), though there is no data examining when these events occur following a COVID-19 diagnosis. We therefore sought to characterize the incidence, timecourse of events, and outcomes of VTE during the COVID-19 pandemic in a national healthcare system using data from Veterans Affairs Administration.

Nonadministration of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is less common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is higher than most other hospitalized patients. Nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is common and is associated with VTE events. Our objective was to determine whether nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is more common in patients with COVID-19 versus other hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of all adult patients discharged from the Johns hopkins hospital between Mar 1 and May 12, 2020, we compared demographic, clinical characteristics, VTE outcomes, prescription and administration of VTE prophylaxis between COVID-19 positive, negative, and not tested groups. RESULTS: Patients tested positive for COVID-19 were significantly older, and more likely to be Hispanic, have a higher median body mass index, have longer hospital length of stay, require mechanical ventilation, develop pulmonary embolism and die (all p < 0.001). COVID-19 patients were more likely to be prescribed (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.38-1.66) and receive all doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.36-1.62). The number of patients who missed at least one dose of VTE prophylaxis and developed VTE was similar between the three groups (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that high rates of VTE in COVID-19 are due to nonadministration of doses of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Hence, we should prioritize research into alternative approaches to optimizing VTE prevention in patients with COVID-19.

DVT incidence and risk factors in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Few data are available on the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in critically ill COVID-19 with thrombosis prophylaxis. This study retrospectively included 88 patients in the ICU with critically ill COVID-19 at Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan, China. All patients underwent compression ultrasonography for identifying DVT. Firth logistic regression was used to examine the association of DVT with sex, age, hypoalbuminemia, D-dimer, and SOFA score. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age and SOFA score of 88 patients were 63 (55-71) years old and 5 (4-6), respectively. Despite all patients receiving guideline-recommended low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis, the incidence of DVT was 46% (95% CI 35-56%). Proximal DVT was recognized in 9% (95% CI 3-15%) of the patients, while 46% (95% CI 35-56%) of patients had distal DVT. All of the proximal DVT combined with distal DVT. Risk factors of DVT extension occurred in all distal DVT patients. As Padua score ≥ 4 or IMPROVE score ≥ 2, 53% and 46% of patients had DVT, respectively. Mortality was higher in patients with acute DVT (30%) compared with non-DVT (17%), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypoalbuminemia (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% CI 0.06-0.05, P = 0.001), higher SOFA score (OR per IQR, 2.07; 95% CI 1.38-3.39, P = 0.001), and elevated D-dimer (OR per IQR, 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.84, P = 0.029) were significant DVT risk factors in multivariable analyses. High incidence of DVT was identified in patients with critically ill COVID-19, despite the use of guideline-recommended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The presence of hypoalbuminemia, higher SOFA score, and elevated D-dimer were significantly independent risk factors of DVT. More effective VTE prevention and management strategies may need to be addressed.

Incidence of pulmonary embolism in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. Predicting factors for a challenging diagnosis.

Recent studies suggest that thrombotic complications are a common phenomenon in the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection. The main objective of our study is to assess cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in non critically ill COVID-19 patients and to identify its predicting factors associated to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We retrospectevely reviewed 452 electronic medical records of patients admitted to Internal Medicine Department of a secondary hospital in Madrid during Covid 19 pandemic outbreak. We included 91 patients who underwent a multidetector Computed Tomography pulmonary angiography(CTPA) during conventional hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of PE was assessed ant the clinical, analytical and radiological characteristics were compared between patients with and without PE. PE incidence was 6.4% (29/452 patients). Most patients with a confirmed diagnosed with PE recieved low molecular weight heparin (LMWH): 79.3% (23/29). D-dimer peak was significatly elevated in PE vs non PE patients (14,480 vs 7230 mcg/dL, p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis of patients who underwent a CTPA we found that plasma D-dimer peak was an independen predictor of PE with a best cut off point of > 5000 µg/dl (OR 3.77; IC95% (1.18-12.16), p = 0.03). We found ninefold increased risk of PE patients not suffering from dyslipidemia (OR 9.06; IC95% (1.88-43.60). Predictive value of AUC for ROC is 75.5%. We found a high incidence of PE in non critically ill hospitalized COVID 19 patients despite standard thromboprophylaxis. An increase in D-dimer levels is an independent predictor for PE, with a best cut-off point of > 5000 µg/ dl.