Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia: The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. Objectives: To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. Design, Settings, and Participants: The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). Results: Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.

Rivaroxaban versus no anticoagulation for post-discharge thromboprophylaxis after hospitalisation for COVID-19 (MICHELLE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk for thrombotic events after discharge; the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised trial conducted at 14 centres in Brazil, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism [IMPROVE] venous thromboembolism [VTE] score of ≥4 or 2-3 with a D-dimer >500 ng/mL) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, at hospital discharge, rivaroxaban 10 mg/day or no anticoagulation for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome in an intention-to-treat analysis was a composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism, asymptomatic venous thromboembolism on bilateral lower-limb venous ultrasound and CT pulmonary angiogram, symptomatic arterial thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death at day 35. Adjudication was blinded. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The primary and safety analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04662684. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to June 29, 2021, 997 patients were screened. Of these patients, 677 did not meet eligibility criteria; the remaining 320 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=160 [50%]) or no anticoagulation (n=160 [50%]). All patients received thromboprophylaxis with standard doses of heparin during hospitalisation. 165 (52%) patients were in the intensive care unit while hospitalised. 197 (62%) patients had an IMPROVE score of 2-3 and elevated D-dimer levels and 121 (38%) had a score of 4 or more. Two patients (one in each group) were lost to follow-up due to withdrawal of consent and not included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in five (3%) of 159 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and 15 (9%) of 159 patients assigned to no anticoagulation (relative risk 0·33, 95% CI 0·12-0·90; p=0·0293). No major bleeding occurred in either study group. Allergic reactions occurred in two (1%) patients in the rivaroxaban group. INTERPRETATION: In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days improved clinical outcomes compared with no extended thromboprophylaxis. FUNDING: Bayer.

A journey through anticoagulant therapies in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus in post-COVID-19 heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune-mediated adverse drug reaction associated with thrombosis. Clinical scoring systems and the presence of anti-platelet factor 4 (anti-PF4)/heparin antibodies determine the diagnosis. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old man who was treated with acenocoumarol due to a chronic left ventricular thrombus was admitted to the hospital for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. The patient was started on bemiparin and discharged. Left lower limb acute arterial ischemia and thrombocytopenia were diagnosed 18 days later. Computed tomography angiography revealed a large left ventricular thrombus and multiple arterial thrombi. Left femoral-popliteal thromboembolectomy was performed. Anti-PF4/heparin antibodies confirmed an HIT diagnosis. Fondaparinux (7.5 mg/24 h) was initiated, but cardiac surgery was necessary. Bivalirudin was used during surgery, with an initial load (1.25 mg/kg) and maintenance infusion (2.5 mg/kg/h). The cardiac thrombus was extracted, but the patient experienced a postsurgical myocardial infarction. Percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI) required a bivalirudin load (0.75 mg/kg) and maintenance infusion (1.75 mg/kg/h). No coronary lesions were detected, and argatroban was started afterwards (0.5 µg/kg/min). When the platelet count exceeded 100 × 109/L, acenocoumarol was initiated. Thereupon, acetylsalicylic acid (100 mg/24 h) was added. No other complications have been reported to date. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentation of intraventricular and multiple arterial thrombi is remarkable. SARS-CoV-2 infection likely contributed to a hypercoagulable state. The management of patients with HIT undergoing cardiac surgery is challenging. If surgery cannot be delayed, then treatment with bivalirudin is recommended. Additionally, this drug is recommended for PCI. Bivalirudin is safe and well-tolerated in both procedures.

Time-course analysis reveals that corticosteroids resuscitate diminished CD8+ T cells in COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the effect of corticosteroids and heparin, respectively, on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients' CD8+ T cells and D-dimer. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study involving 866 participants diagnosed with COVID-19, patients were grouped by severity. Generalized additive models were established to explore the time-course association of representative parameters of coagulation, inflammation and immunity. Segmented regression was performed to examine the influence of corticosteroids and heparin upon CD8+ T cell and D-dimer, respectively. RESULTS: There were 541 moderate, 169 severe and 156 critically ill patients involved in the study. Synchronous changes of levels of NLR, D-dimer and CD8+ T cell in critically ill patients were observed. Administration of methylprednisolone before 14 DFS compared with those after 14 DFS (ß = 0.154%, 95% CI=(0, 0.302), p=.048) or a dose lower than 40 mg per day compared with those equals to 40 mg per day (ß = 0.163%, 95% CI=(0.027, 0.295), p=.020) significantly increased the rising rate of CD8+ T cell in 14-56 DFS. CONCLUSIONS: The parameters of coagulation, inflammation and immunity were longitudinally correlated, and an early low-dose corticosteroid treatment accelerated the regaining of CD8+ T cell to help battle against SARS-Cov-2 in critical cases of COVID-19.

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.

Treatment for COVID-19-a cohort study from Northern Italy.

Multicentre, retrospective cohort study with multivariable Cox proportional-hazards modelling and survival-time inverse-probability-weighting, evaluating the impact of different treatments on survival of proven COVID-19 patients admitted to two Hospitals in the province of Piacenza, Italy. Use of tocilizumab and of high doses of low molecular weight heparin, but not of antivirals (either alone or in combination), azithromycin, and any corticosteroid, was independently associated with lower mortality. Our results support further clinical evaluation of high doses of low molecular weight heparin and tocilizumab as COVID-19 therapeutics.

Surface Glycan Modification of Cellular Nanosponges to Promote SARS-CoV-2 Inhibition.

Cellular binding and entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are mediated by its spike glycoprotein (S protein), which binds with not only the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor but also glycosaminoglycans such as heparin. Cell membrane-coated nanoparticles ("cellular nanosponges") mimic the host cells to attract and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 through natural cellular receptors, leading to a broad-spectrum antiviral strategy. Herein, we show that increasing surface heparin density on the cellular nanosponges can promote their inhibition against SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, cellular nanosponges are made with azido-expressing host cell membranes followed by conjugating heparin to the nanosponge surfaces. Cellular nanosponges with a higher heparin density have a larger binding capacity with viral S proteins and a significantly higher inhibition efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Overall, surface glycan engineering of host-mimicking cellular nanosponges is a facile method to enhance SARS-CoV-2 inhibition. This approach can be readily generalized to promote the inhibition of other glycan-dependent viruses.

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.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: An update for the COVID-19 era.

The increased use of heparin during the current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risk of a rare but potentially serious complication of heparin therapy, viz. heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). This is a short review on the pharmacology of heparin and its derivatives, and the pathophysiology of HIT. Guidance on laboratory testing for and clinical management of HIT is presented in accordance with international guidelines. There are important similarities and differences between HIT and the new entity of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, also known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which clinicians need to be aware of.

The Impact of Risk-Adjusted Heparin Regimens on the Outcome of Patients with COVID-19 Infection. A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: According to recent guidelines, all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), unless there are specific contraindications. However, the optimal preventive strategy in terms of intensity of anticoagulation for these patients is not well established. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of individualized regimens of enoxaparin on the development of VTE and on the risk of major bleeding complications during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted to the medical wards of six Italian hospitals between 15 September and 15 October 2020 with COVID-19 infection of moderate severity were administered enoxaparin in subcutaneous daily doses adjusted to the Padua Prediction Score stratification model: No heparin in patients scoring less than 4, 4000 IU daily in those scoring 4, 6000 IU in those scoring 5, and 8000 in those scoring six or more. Objective tests were performed in patients developing clinical symptoms of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding complications were defined according to the ISTH classification. RESULTS: From the 154 eligible patients, enoxaparin was administered in all: 4000 IU in 73 patients, 6000 IU in 53, and 8000 IU in the remaining 28. During the course of hospitalization, 27 patients (17.5%) died. VTE developed in 14 of the 154 patients (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.6% to 13.6%), and was fatal in 1. Major bleeding complications developed in 35 patients (22.7%; 95% CI, 16.1% to 29.3%), and were fatal in 8. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of risk-adjusted doses of enoxaparin, the rate of VTE events was consistent with that reported in contemporary studies where fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was used. The unexpectedly high risk of bleeding complications should induce caution in administering enoxaparin in doses higher than the conventional low ones.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Efficacy of thromboelastography in the management of anticoagulation for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient: A case report.

RATIONALE: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome refractory to optimal conventional management, we should consider the indication for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Growing evidence indicates that COVID-19 frequently causes coagulopathy, presenting as hypercoagulation and incidental thrombosis. For these reasons, a multifactorial approach with several anticoagulant markers should be considered in the management of anticoagulation using heparin in COVID-19 patients on V-V ECMO. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 48-year-old man was infected with COVID-19 with a worsening condition manifesting as acute respiratory distress syndrome. DIAGNOSES: He was refractory to conventional therapy, thus we decided to introduce V-V ECMO. We used heparin as an anticoagulant therapy for V-V ECMO and adjusted the doses of heparin by careful monitoring of the activated clotting time (ACT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) to avoid both hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications. We controlled the doses of heparin in the therapeutic ranges of ACT and APTT, but clinical hemorrhaging and profound elevation of coagulant marker became apparent. INTERVENTIONS: Using thromboelastography (TEG; Haemonetics) in addition to ACT and APTT, we were able to clearly detect not only sufficient coagulability of COVID19 on V-V ECMO (citrated rapid thromboelastography-R 0.5 min, angle 75.5°, MA 64.0 mm, citrated functional fibrinogen-MA 20.7 mm) but also an excessive effect of heparin (citrated kaolin -R 42.7 min, citrated kaolin with heparinase 11.7 min). OUTCOMES: Given the TEG findings indicating an excessive heparin effect, the early withdrawal of ECMO was considered. After an evaluation of the patient's respiratory capacity, withdrawal from V-V ECMO was achieved and then anticoagulation was stopped. The hemorrhagic complications and elevated thrombotic marker levels dramatically decreased. LESSONS: TEG monitoring might be a useful option for managing anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients on V-V ECMO frequently showing a hypercoagulative state and requiring massive doses of heparin, to reduce both hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications.

Successful management of a patient with active Cushing's disease complicated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

We provide the details of the successful management of a patient with active Cushing's disease complicated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The patient was a 27-year-old Japanese female healthcare worker who was scheduled to undergo pituitary surgery for Cushing's disease. She had been in close contact with an undiagnosed patient infected with COVID-19 and then developed COVID-19 pneumonia. Despite a lack of known risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 infection, the patient's dyspnea worsened and her respiratory condition deteriorated, as indicated by the need for 7 L/min oxygen supply by mask to maintain her oxygen saturation at >90%. Medical treatment was initiated to control hypercortisolism by the 'block and replace' regimen using steroidogenesis inhibitors and hydrocortisone. The COVID-19 pneumonia improved with multi-modal treatment including antiviral therapy. One month later, after a negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) test result and with appropriate protection against virus transmission to medical staff in the operating room and daily medical care nurses, trans-sphenoidal surgery was performed by our highly experienced pituitary surgeon. One month after the surgery, the patient's basal ACTH and cortisol levels and urinary free cortisol were all under the detection limit. Surgical remission was expected. Since hypercortisolism due to active Cushing's disease may worsen a COVID-19 infection, multi-disciplinary management that includes appropriate and prompt treatment strategies is mandatory in such cases.

Endotoxin Adsorbent Therapy in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled systemic inflammation may occur in severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). We have previously shown that endotoxemia, presumably from the gut, may complicate COVID-19. However, the role of endotoxin adsorbent (EA) therapy to mitigate organ dysfunction in COVID-19 has not been explored. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study in COVID-19 patients who received EA therapy at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, between March 13 and April 17, 2020. Relevant clinical and laboratory data were collected by inpatient chart review. RESULTS: Among 147 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 6 patients received EA therapy. All of the 6 patients had severe COVID-19 infection with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Among these, 5 of them were mechanically ventilated and 4 had complications of secondary bacterial infection. The endotoxin activity assay (EAA) results of pre-EA therapy ranged from 0.47 to 2.79. The choices of EA therapy were at the discretion of attending physicians. One patient was treated with oXiris® along with continuous renal replacement therapy, and the others received polymyxin B hemoperfusion sessions. All patients have survived and were finally free from the mechanical ventilation as well as had improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and decreased EAA level after EA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the clinical improvement of severe COVID-19 patients with elevated EAA level upon receiving EA therapy. However, the benefit of EA therapy in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear and needs to be elucidated with randomized controlled study.

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.

Nebulised heparin for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation in intensive care for 48 h or longer is associated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which might be present at the time ventilatory support is instituted or develop afterwards, predominantly during the first 5 days. Survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ARDS are at risk of considerably impaired physical function that can persist for years. An early pathogenic mechanism of lung injury in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients is inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrin deposition, leading to thrombosis of the microvasculature and hyaline membrane formation in the air sacs. The main aim of this study was to determine if nebulised heparin, which targets fibrin deposition, would limit lung injury and thereby accelerate recovery of physical function in patients with or at risk of ARDS. METHODS: The Can Heparin Administration Reduce Lung Injury (CHARLI) study was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial across nine hospitals in Australia. Adult intensive care patients on invasive ventilation, with impaired oxygenation defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of less than 300, and with the expectation of invasive ventilation beyond the next calendar day were recruited. Key exclusion criteria were heparin allergy, pulmonary bleeding, and platelet count less than 50 X 109/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with stratification by site and using blocks of variable size and random seed, via a web-based system, to either unfractionated heparin sodium 25 000 IU in 5 mL or identical placebo (sodium chloride 0·9% 5 mL), administered using a vibrating mesh membrane nebuliser every 6 h to day 10 while invasively ventilated. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function Score (out of 100) of survivors at day 60. Prespecified secondary outcomes, which are exploratory, included development of ARDS to day 5 among at-risk patients, deterioration of the Murray Lung Injury Score (MLIS) to day 5, mortality at day 60, residence of survivors at day 60, and serious adverse events. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. There was no imputation of missing data. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612000418875 . FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2012, and Aug 23, 2018, 256 patients were randomised. Final follow-up was on Feb 25, 2019. We excluded three patients who revoked consent and one ineligible participant who received no intervention. Of 252 patients included in data analysis, the mean age was 58 years (SD 15), 157 (62%) were men, and 118 (47%) had ARDS. 128 (51%) patients were assigned to the heparin group and 124 (49%) to the placebo group, all of whom received their assigned intervention. Survivors in the heparin group (n=97) had similar SF-36 Physical Function Scores at day 60 compared to the placebo group (n=94; mean 53·6 [SD 31·6] vs 48·7 [35·7]; difference 4·9 [95% CI -4·8 to 14·5]; p=0·32). Compared with the placebo group, the heparin group had fewer cases of ARDS develop to day 5 among the at-risk patients (nine [15%] of 62 patients vs 21 [30%] of 71 patients; hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·22 to 0·98]; p=0·0431), less deterioration of the MLIS to day 5 (difference -0·14 [-0·26 to -0·02]; p=0·0215), similar day 60 mortality (23 [18%] of 127 patients vs 18 [15%] of 123 patients; odds ratio [OR] 1·29 [95% CI 0·66 to 2·53]; p=0·46), and more day 60 survivors at home (86 [87%] of 99 patients vs 73 [73%] of 100 patients; OR 2·45 [1·18 to 5·08]; p=0·0165). A similar number of serious adverse events occurred in each group (seven [5%] of 128 patients in the heparin group vs three [2%] of 124 patients in the placebo group; OR 2·33 [0·59 to 9·24]; p=0·23), which were a transient increase in airway pressure during nebulisation (n=3 in the heparin group), major non-pulmonary bleeding (n=2 in each group), haemoptysis (n=1 in the heparin group), tracheotomy site bleeding (n=1 in the heparin group), and hypoxaemia during nebulisation (n=1 in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with or at risk of ARDS, nebulised heparin did not improve self-reported performance of daily physical activities, but was well tolerated and exploratory outcomes suggest less progression of lung injury and earlier return home. Further research is justified to establish if nebulised heparin accelerates recovery in those who have or are at risk of ARDS. FUNDING: Rowe Family Foundation, TR and RB Ditchfield Medical Research Endowment Fund, Patricia Madigan Charitable Trust, and The J and R McGauran Trust Fund.