Mechanisms of COVID-19-induced kidney injury and current pharmacotherapies.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a worldwide debilitating health crisis with the entire humanity suffering from the deleterious effects associated with the high infectivity and mortality rates. While significant evidence is currently available online and targets various aspects of the disease, both inflammatory and noninflammatory kidney manifestations secondary to COVID-19 infection are still largely underrepresented. In this review, we summarized current knowledge about COVID-19-related kidney manifestations, their pathologic mechanisms as well as various pharmacotherapies used to treat patients with COVID-19. We also shed light on the effect of these medications on kidney functions that can further enhance renal damage secondary to the illness.

PICO Questions and DELPHI Methodology for the Management of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with COVID-19.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a higher risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) than patients with other infectious or inflammatory diseases, both as macrothrombosis (pulmonar embolism and deep vein thrombosis) or microthrombosis. However, the use of anticoagulation in this scenario remains controversial. This is a project that used DELPHI methodology to answer PICO questions related to anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. The objective was to reach a consensus among multidisciplinary VTE experts providing answers to those PICO questions. Seven PICO questions regarding patients with COVID-19 responded with a broad consensus: 1. It is recommended to avoid pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in most COVID-19 patients not requiring hospital admission; 2. In most hospitalized patients for COVID-19 who are receiving oral anticoagulants before admission, it is recommended to replace them by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at therapeutic doses; 3. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH at standard doses is suggested for COVID-19 patients admitted to a conventional hospital ward; 4. Standard-doses thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring admission to Intensive Care Unit; 5. It is recommended not to determine D-Dimer levels routinely in COVID-19 hospitalized patients to select those in whom VTE should be suspected, or as a part of the diagnostic algorithm to rule out or confirm a VTE event; 6. It is recommended to discontinue pharmacological thromboprophylaxis at discharge in most patients hospitalized for COVID-19; 7. It is recommended to withdraw anticoagulant treatment after 3 months in most patients with a VTE event associated with COVID-19. The combination of PICO questions and DELPHI methodology provides a consensus on different recommendations for anticoagulation management in patients with COVID-19.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity.

BACKGROUND: Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions: Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Anticoagulation for COVID-19 Patients: A Bird's-Eye View.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that can be life-threatening involving immune and inflammatory responses, and that can result in potentially lethal complications, including venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Forming an integrative approach to thrombo-prophylaxis and coagulation treatment for COVID-19 patients ensues. We aim at reviewing the literature for anticoagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection to provide a summary on anticoagulation for this patient population. COVID-19 infection is associated with a state of continuous inflammation, which results in macrophage activation syndrome and an increased rate of thrombosis. Risk assessment models to predict the risk of thrombosis in critically ill patients have not yet been validated. Currently published guidelines suggest the use of prophylactic intensity over intermediate intensity or therapeutic intensity anticoagulant for patients with critical illness or acute illness related to COVID-19 infection. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who are diagnosed with acute VTE are considered to have a provoking factor, and, therefore, treatment duration should be at least 3 months. Patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism should receive parenteral over oral anticoagulants with low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux preferred over unfractionated heparin. In patients with impending hemodynamic compromise due to PE, and who are not at increased risk for bleeding, reperfusion may be necessary. Internists should remain updated on new emerging evidence regarding anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. Awaiting these findings, we invite internists to perform individualized decisions that are unique for every patient and to base them on clinical judgment for risk assessment.

Comparison of standard prophylactic and preemptive therapeutic low molecular weight heparin treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

NTRODUCTION: Anticoagulant treatment approach in patients with COVID-19 is not well studied and not standardized. We aimed to compare the effects of standard prophylactic and pre-emptive therapeutic Low-Molecular-weight Heparin (LMWH) treatment approaches on mortality in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective and single-centre study includes patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with LMWH during the hospital stay. Therapeutic dose of LMWH was defined as 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily and prophylactic dose of LMWH was defined as 40 mg subcutaneously once daily. RESULTS: Among the 336 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, 115 patients, who received LMWH were included in the study. The mean age was 58.6 ± 13.3 and 58 (50.4 %) of the patients were male. Sixty-nine (60 %) of the patients were treated with prophylactic and 46 (40 %) therapeutic LMWH.In-hospital mortality was not different between patients treated therapeutic LMWH and prophylactic LMWH by the multivariate regression analysis (OR=2.187, 95% CI 0.484-9.880, p=0.309) and the propensity score modelling (OR=1.586, 95% CI 0.400-6.289, p=0.512.)CONCLUSION: Clinicians should consider the potential risks and benefits of standard prophylactic and pre-emptive therapeutic LMWH. Therefore, anticoagulant therapy should be individualized in patients with COVID-19 (Tab. 3, Ref. 28).

Heparin dosage, level, and resistance in SARS-CoV2 infected patients in intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with COVID-19 frequently exhibit a hypercoagulable state with high thrombotic risk, particularly those admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Thromboprophylaxis is mandatory in these patients; nevertheless, thrombosis still occurs in many cases. Thus, the problem of assessing an adequate level of anticoagulation in ICU patients becomes evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the heparin resistance and the efficacy of heparin monitoring using an anti-Xa activity assay. METHODS: Thirty-seven heparin-treated patients admitted to ICU for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were retrospectively studied for antifactor Xa activity (anti-Xa), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), Antithrombin, Fibrinogen, D-Dimer, Factor VIII, von Willebrand Factor, and the total daily amount of heparin administered. The correlation between APTT and anti-Xa was evaluated for unfractionated heparins (UFH). The correlations between the daily dose of UFH or the dosage expressed as IU/kg b.w. for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and anti-Xa were also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received calcium heparin, 8 sodium heparin, and 8 LMWH. A moderate correlation was found between APTT and anti-Xa for UFH. APTT did not correlate with coagulation parameters. 62% of UFH and 75% of LMWH treated patients were under the therapeutic range. About 75% of patients could be considered resistant to heparin. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-COV2 pneumonia patients in ICU have frequently heparin resistance. Anti-Xa seems a more reliable method to monitor heparin treatment than APTT in acute patients, also because the assay is insensitive to the increased levels of fibrinogen, FVIII, and LAC that are common during the COVID-19 inflammatory state.

SARS-CoV-2 and finding of vein thrombosis: can IMPROVE and IMPROVEDD scores predict COVID-19 outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: Diffuse thrombosis represents one of the most predominant causes of death by COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to increase the risk of developing venous thromboembolic diseases (VTE). Aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between validated predictive scores for VTE such as IMPROVE and IMPROVEDD and: (1) Intensification of Care (IoC, admission to Pulmonology Department or Intensive Care Unit) (2) in-hospital mortality rate 3) 30-days mortality rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 51 adult patients with laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and calculated IMPROVE and IMPROVEDD scores. All patients underwent venous color-Doppler ultrasound of the lower limbs to assess the presence of superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Patients with normal values of D-dimer did not receive heparin therapy (LMWH); patients with ≥ 4 ULN values of D-dimer or with a diagnosis of DVT were treated with therapeutic LMWH dosage, while the remaining patients were treated with prophylactic LMWH dosages. RESULTS: We found strong relations between IMPROVE score and the need for IoC and with the in-hospital mortality rate and between the IMPROVEDD score and the need for IoC. We defined that an IMPROVE score greater than 4 points was significantly associated to in-hospital mortality rate (p = 0.05), while an IMPROVEDD score greater than 3 points was associated with the need for IoC (p = 0.04). Multivariate logistic analysis showed how IMPROVE score was significantly associated to in-hospital and 30-days mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: IMPROVE score can be considered an independent predictor of in-hospital and 30-days mortality.

The role of anti-hypertensive treatment, comorbidities and early introduction of LMWH in the setting of COVID-19: A retrospective, observational study in Northern Italy.

BACKGROUND: There is a great deal of debate about the role of cardiovascular comorbidities and the chronic use of antihypertensive agents (such as ACE-I and ARBs) on mortality on COVID-19 patients. Of note, ACE2 is responsible for the host cell entry of the virus. METHODS: We extracted data on 575 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of Humanitas Center, between February 21 and April 14, 2020. The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of chronic treatment with ACE-I or ARBs and other clinical predictors on in-hospital mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that a chronic intake of ACE-I was associated with a trend in reduction of mortality (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.27-1.03; p = 0.06), differently from a chronic intake of ARB (OR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.5-2.8; p=0.8). Increased age (ORs ranging from 3.4 to 25.2 and to 39.5 for 60-70, 70-80 and >80 years vs <60) and cardiovascular comorbidities (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.1-3.3; p = 0.02) were confirmed as important risk factors for COVID-19 mortality. Timely treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in ED was found to be protective (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.21-0.62; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study can contribute to understand the reasons behind the high mortality rate of patients in Lombardy, a region which accounts for >50% of total Italian deaths. Based on our findings, we support that daily intake of antihypertensive medications in the setting of COVID-19 should not be discontinued and that a timely LMWH administration in ED has shown to decrease in-hospital mortality.

Increasing dosages of low-molecular-weight heparin in hospitalized patients with Covid-19.

We conducted an observational cohort study in adult patients consecutively admitted for the respiratory illness Covid-19 to our hub hospital from March 9 to April 7, 2020. The high observed rate of venous thromboembolism prompted us to increase the prophylactic doses of enoxaparin from 40 mg daily up to 1 mg/kg twice daily in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), 0.7 mg/kg twice daily in high-intensity of care wards and 1 mg/kg daily in low-intensity of care wards. Patients on high enoxaparin doses were compared to those who received prophylaxis with the standard dosage. Efficacy endpoints were mortality, clinical deterioration, and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleeding. Of 278 patients with Covid-19, 127 received prophylaxis with high enoxaparin doses and 151 with standard dosage. At 21 days, the incidence rate of death and clinical deterioration were lower in patients on higher doses than in those on the standard dosage (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62), and the incidence of venous thromboembolism was also lower (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.05). Major bleeding occurred in four of 127 patients (3.1%) on the high enoxaparin dosage. In conclusion, in the cohort of patients with Covid-19 treated with high enoxaparin dosages we observed a 60% reduction of mortality and clinical deterioration and a 50% reduction of venous thromboembolism compared to standard dosage prophylaxis. However, 3% of patients on high enoxaparin dosages had non-fatal major bleeding.

Coronavirus-induced coagulopathy during the course of disease.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) suffer from excessive coagulation activation and coagulopathy which is associated with an increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism and adverse outcome. Our study investigates coagulation markers and the incidence of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients receiving recommended anticoagulation strategies. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center analysis at the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, we investigated 31 adult COVID-19 patients between April 6th and May 13th, 2020 and with at least one laboratory assessment of the coagulation markers prothrombin time/Quick, thrombin time, fibrinogen and D-dimers. For antithrombotic prophylaxis low-molecular-weight-heparin or unfractionated heparin was administered and two patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia received argatroban. RESULTS: We analyzed 31 patients (68% male, mean age 60± SD 15 years). 22 (71%) of these required intensive care unit treatment, 5 (16%) were hospitalized in a ward, and 4 (13%) were outpatients. Mean fibrinogen levels were markedly elevated to 6.4± SD 1.8g/l, with a peak in the third week of the disease and no significant decrease over time. D-dimers were elevated to a mean value of 5.1±4.4mg/l with peak levels of 6.8±5.3mg/l in the fourth week of disease, and a subsequent decrease. Platelet count (308±136G/l) and PT/Quick (85±22%) showed no significant changes over time. Sensitivity analyses for patients treated in the ICU showed that D-dimer levels were higher in this group. The results of other sensitivity analyses were comparable. Thromboembolic events were diagnosed in 4 (13%) patients and 5 (16%) patients died during the observation period. CONCLUSION: We find coagulation alterations in COVID-19 patients indicating significant hypercoagulability. These alterations are visible despite antithrombotic treatment, and peak around week 3-4 of the disease.

Therapeutic dosing of low-molecular-weight heparin may decrease mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism or extensive thrombosis is relatively common in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and has been associated with increased mortality. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, several prophylactic doses and types of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are being used worldwide; however, there are no high-quality studies or recommendations for an optimal prophylactic LMWH dose. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the relationship between coagulation parameters and the LMWH dose, and mortality and ICU admission in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on clinical features, coagulation parameters and anticoagulant medications of inpatients with severe COVID-19 were collected for the period between 11 March 2020 and 31 April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and ICU admission for prophylactic dose LMWH (0.5 mg/kg twice daily) and therapeutic dose LMWH (1 mg/kg twice daily). SAMPLE SIZE: 154 cases. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (63.6%) patients were treated with the LMWH prophylactic dose and 56 (36.4%) patients were treated with the therapeutic dose. Forty-four (44.9%) of 98 patients using the prophylactic dose LMWH died, while 10 (17.9%) of 56 patients using the therapeutic dose LMWH died (P=.001). Mortality was 6.4-fold higher in the prophylactic dose LMWH users than in the therapeutic dose LMWH users (OR=6.5, 95% CI: 2.4-17.6, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic dosing of LMWH may decrease mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 infected pneumonia. More aggressive thromboprophylaxis regimens using higher doses of heparin should be evaluated in prospective studies. LIMITATIONS: Lack of information about bleeding complications. LMWH was not compared with other anticoagulant therapies. There was no comparison between our two groups on the APACHE score. Used different doses of LMWH in different clinics in our hospital. Single-center, retrospective study. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

A randomized, open-label, adaptive, proof-of-concept clinical trial of modulation of host thromboinflammatory response in patients with COVID-19: the DAWn-Antico study.

BACKGROUND: The peak of the global COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been reached, and many countries face the prospect of a second wave of infections before effective vaccinations will be available. After an initial phase of viral replication, some patients develop a second illness phase in which the host thrombotic and inflammatory responses seem to drive complications. Severe COVID-19 disease is linked to high mortality, hyperinflammation, and a remarkably high incidence of thrombotic events. We hypothesize a crucial pathophysiological role for the contact pathway of coagulation and the kallikrein-bradykinin pathway. Therefore, drugs that modulate this excessive thromboinflammatory response should be investigated in severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, open-label multicenter randomized clinical trial, we compare low molecular weight heparins at 50 IU anti-Xa/kg twice daily-or 75 IU anti-Xa twice daily for intensive care (ICU) patients-in combination with aprotinin to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In the case of hyperinflammation, the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra will be added on top of the drugs in the interventional arm. In a pilot phase, the effect of the intervention on thrombotic markers (D-dimer) will be assessed. In the full trial, the primary outcome is defined as the effect of the interventional drugs on clinical status as defined by the WHO ordinal scale for clinical improvement. DISCUSSION: In this trial, we target the thromboinflammatory response at multiple levels. We intensify the dose of low molecular weight heparins to reduce thrombotic complications. Aprotinin is a potent kallikrein pathway inhibitor that reduces fibrinolysis, activation of the contact pathway of coagulation, and local inflammatory response. Additionally, aprotinin has shown in vitro inhibitory effects on SARS-CoV-2 cellular entry. Because the excessive thromboinflammatory response is one of the most adverse prognostic factors in COVID-19, we will add anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, to the regimen in case of severely increased inflammatory parameters. This way, we hope to modulate the systemic response to SARS-CoV-2 and avoid disease progressions with a potentially fatal outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The EU Clinical Trials Register 2020-001739-28 . Registered on April 10, 2020.

The effectiveness of early anticoagulant treatment in Covid-19 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an emerging, fast-spreading and worldwide infectious disease that would be deteriorated with the precipitation of systemic or local thrombosis. The aim of current study was evaluating the effects of early anticoagulant treatment in hospitalized Covid-19 patients. METHOD: The present retrospective and comparative cohort study investigated 413 hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with or without Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) (n = 187 and 226, respectively) in the Covid Clinics of Gulhane Education and Research Hospital in Ankara, Turkey, between March 18 and May 03, 2020. The treatment groups were consisted of the patients evaluated before and after The Covid-19 Treatment Guide update on April 12, 2020 that included the anticoagulant treatment thereafter. RESULTS: The mean age of all 413 patients (204 male and 209 female) at disease onset was 50.6 ± 16.7 years. The LMWH-treated patients had significantly higher coagulation markers such as d-dimer and platelet count than LMWH-untreated patients (p values < 0.05). The inflammatory markers, ferritin, interleukin-6 and procalcitonin were significantly increased in LMWH-untreated patients (p values < 0.05). The presence of any comorbidity was significantly more common in LMWH-treated patients compared to LMWH-untreated group (39.6% vs 19.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were the most frequent comorbidities in both groups. The number of intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and longer length of hospital stay were more commonly observed in LMWH-untreated patients (p values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Early anticoagulant treatment with relatively higher doses of LMWH may improve the clinical outcome of Covid-19 patients and shorten the length of hospital stay.

Comparison of different anticoagulation strategies for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) that requires renal replacement therapy (RRT). A state of hypercoagulability reduces circuit life spans. To maintain circuit patency and therapeutic efficiency, an optimized anticoagulation strategy is needed. This study investigates whether alternative anticoagulation strategies for RRT during COVID-19 are superior to administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study on 71 critically ill COVID-19 patients (≥18 years), admitted to intensive care units at a tertiary health care facility in the southwestern part of Germany between February 26 and May 21, 2020. We collected data on the disease course, AKI, RRT, and thromboembolic events. Four different anticoagulatory regimens were administered. Anticoagulation during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) was performed with UFH or citrate. Anticoagulation during sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) was performed with UFH, argatroban, or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Primary outcome is the effect of the anticoagulation regimen on mean treatment times of RRT. RESULTS: In patients receiving CVVHD, mean treatment time in the UFH group was 21.3 h (SEM: ±5.6 h), in the citrate group 45.6 h (SEM: ±2.7 h). Citrate anticoagulation significantly prolonged treatment times by 24.4 h (P = .001). In patients receiving SLEDD, mean treatment time with UFH was 8.1 h (SEM: ±1.3 h), with argatroban 8.0 h (SEM: ±0.9 h), and with LMWH 11.8 h (SEM: ±0.5 h). LMWH significantly prolonged treatment times by 3.7 h (P = .008) and 3.8 h (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: UFH fails to prevent early clotting events in the dialysis circuit during COVID-19. For patients, who do not require effective systemic anticoagulation, regional citrate dialysis is the most effective strategy. For patients, who require effective systemic anticoagulation, the usage of LMWH results in the longest circuit life spans. The proposed anticoagulatory strategies are safe, can easily be monitored, and allow an individualized treatment.

Presenting Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes among Patients with Venous Thromboembolism during Hospitalization for COVID-19.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, limited data exist on patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. To describe the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and short-term outcomes of patients diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for COVID-19. This is a prospective multinational study of patients with incident VTE during the course of hospitalization for COVID-19. Data were obtained from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry. All-cause mortality, VTE recurrences, and major bleeding during the first 10 days were separately investigated for patients in hospital wards versus those in intensive care units (ICUs). As of May 03, 2020, a total number of 455 patients were diagnosed with VTE (83% pulmonary embolism, 17% isolated deep vein thrombosis) during their hospital stay; 71% were male, the median age was 65 (interquartile range, 55-74) years. Most patients (68%) were hospitalized in medical wards, and 145 in ICUs. Three hundred and seventeen (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 84-91%) patients were receiving thromboprophylaxis at the time of VTE diagnosis. Most patients (88%) received therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin, and 15 (3.6%) received reperfusion therapies. Among 420 patients with complete 10-day follow-up, 51 (12%; 95% CI: 9.3-15%) died, no patient recurred, and 12 (2.9%; 95% CI: 1.6-4.8%) experienced major bleeding. The 10-day mortality rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 6.1-13%) among patients in hospital wards and 19% (95% CI: 13-26%) among those in ICUs. This study provides characteristics and early outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute VTE during hospitalization for COVID-19. Additional studies are needed to identify the optimal strategies to prevent VTE and to mitigate adverse outcomes associated.