Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

Abnormal thrombosis and neutrophil activation increase hospital-acquired sacral pressure injuries and morbidity in COVID-19 patients.

Hospitalized patients have an increased risk of developing hospital-acquired sacral pressure injury (HASPI). However, it is unknown whether SARS-CoV-2 infection affects HASPI development. To explore the role of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HASPI development, we conducted a single institution, multi-hospital, retrospective study of all patients hospitalized for ≥5 days from March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Patient demographics, hospitalization information, ulcer characteristics, and 30-day-related morbidity were collected for all patients with HASPIs, and intact skin was collected from HASPI borders in a patient subset. We determined the incidence, disease course, and short-term morbidity of HASPIs in COVID-19(+) patients, and characterized the skin histopathology and tissue gene signatures associated with HASPIs in COVID-19 disease. COVID-19(+) patients had a 63% increased HASPI incidence rate, HASPIs of more severe ulcer stage (OR 2.0, p<0.001), and HASPIs more likely to require debridement (OR 3.1, p=0.04) compared to COVID-19(-) patients. Furthermore, COVID-19(+) patients with HASPIs had 2.2x increased odds of a more severe hospitalization course compared to COVID-19(+) patients without HASPIs. HASPI skin histology from COVID-19(+) patients predominantly showed thrombotic vasculopathy, with the number of thrombosed vessels being significantly greater than HASPIs from COVID-19(-) patients. Transcriptional signatures of a COVID-19(+) sample subset were enriched for innate immune responses, thrombosis, and neutrophil activation genes. Overall, our results suggest that immunologic dysregulation secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection, including neutrophil dysfunction and abnormal thrombosis, may play a pathogenic role in development of HASPIs in patients with severe COVID-19.

Hemorrhage, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy, and Thrombosis Complications Among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An International COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and outcomes associated with hemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and thrombosis (HECTOR) complications in ICU patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Two hundred twenty-nine ICUs across 32 countries. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥ 16 yr) admitted to participating ICUs for severe COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: HECTOR complications occurred in 1,732 of 11,969 study eligible patients (14%). Acute thrombosis occurred in 1,249 patients (10%), including 712 (57%) with pulmonary embolism, 413 (33%) with myocardial ischemia, 93 (7.4%) with deep vein thrombosis, and 49 (3.9%) with ischemic strokes. Hemorrhagic complications were reported in 579 patients (4.8%), including 276 (48%) with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 83 (14%) with hemorrhagic stroke, 77 (13%) with pulmonary hemorrhage, and 68 (12%) with hemorrhage associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula site. Disseminated intravascular coagulation occurred in 11 patients (0.09%). Univariate analysis showed that diabetes, cardiac and kidney diseases, and ECMO use were risk factors for HECTOR. Among survivors, ICU stay was longer (median days 19 vs 12; p < 0.001) for patients with versus without HECTOR, but the hazard of ICU mortality was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.92-1.12; p = 0.784) overall, although this hazard was identified when non-ECMO patients were considered (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.25; p = 0.015). Hemorrhagic complications were associated with an increased hazard of ICU mortality compared to patients without HECTOR complications (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.45; p = 0.002), whereas thrombosis complications were associated with reduced hazard (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: HECTOR events are frequent complications of severe COVID-19 in ICU patients. Patients receiving ECMO are at particular risk of hemorrhagic complications. Hemorrhagic, but not thrombotic complications, are associated with increased ICU mortality.

Prevalence of thrombosis in patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Covid-19 infection and cancer are associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. The aim of our study is to analyze the cumulative incidence of thrombosis in oncological patients with Covid-19 and detect differences with the non-cancer Covid-19 population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1127 medical records of all admitted patients to ward of the Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor (Madrid, Spain), including 86 patients with active cancer between March 5th, 2020 to May 3rd, 2020. We analyzed cumulative incidence of thrombosis and risk factors associated to the cancer patient's cohort. RESULTS: We diagnosed 10 thrombotic events in 8 oncological patients with a cumulative incidence of 9.3%. A statistically significant association was found regarding thrombosis and history of obesity (p=0.009). No differences related to cumulative incidence of thrombosis between both groups were detected (9.8% vs 5.80%) in our hospital (p=0.25). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of thrombosis in the two study groups. The thrombotic effect of Covid-19 is not as evident in cancer patients and does not seem to be added to its prothrombotic activity.

Association between PaO2/FiO2 ratio and thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients.

PaO2/FiO2 (P/F ratio) is considered a marker of hypoxia/hypoxemia and mortality. Several prothrombotic changes are associated with the decrease of P/F ratio. The role of P/F ratio in patients with arterial and venous thrombosis remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the association between P/F ratio and arterial/venous thrombosis. One thousand and four hundred and six COVID-19 patients were recruited; 289 (21%) patients had P/F ratio < 200 and 1117 (79%) ≥ 200. Compared to the patients with P/F ratio ≥ 200, those with P/F ratio < 200 were older and with higher levels of glycemia, D-dimer and lower levels of albumin. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that albumin (standardized coefficient ß:  0.156; SE: 0.001; p = 0.0001) and D-dimer (standardized coefficient ß: -0.135; SE: 0.0001; p = 0.0001) were associated with P/F ratio. During the hospitalization 159 patients were transferred in intensive care unit (ICU), 253 patients died, 156 patients had arterial or venous thrombotic events. A bivariate logistic analysis was performed to analyze the predictors of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients; P/F ratio < 200 (Odds Ratio: [OR] 1.718, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.085-2.718, p = 0.021), albumin (OR 1.693, 95% CI 1.055-2.716, p = 0.029), D-dimer (OR 3.469, 95% CI 2.110-5.703, p < 0.0001), coronary artery disease (CAD) (OR 1.800, 95% CI 1.086-2.984, p = 0.023) and heart failure (OR 2.410 95% CI 1.385-4.193, p = 0.002) independently predicted thrombotic events in this population. This study suggests that the P/F ratio is associated with thrombotic events by promoting a hypercoagulation state in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Influence of obesity on incidence of thrombosis and disease severity in patients with COVID-19: From the CLOT-COVID study.

BACKGROUND: The influence of obesity on the development of thrombosis and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. METHOD: The CLOT-COVID study was a retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolling 2894 consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between April 2021 and September 2021 among 16 centers in Japan. The present study consisted of 2690 patients aged over 18 years with available body mass index (BMI), who were divided into an obesity group (BMI ≥30) (N = 457) and a non-obesity group (BMI <30) (N = 2233). RESULTS: The obesity group showed more severe status of COVID-19 at admission compared with the non-obesity group. The incidence of thrombosis was not significantly different between the groups (obesity group: 2.6 % versus non-obesity group: 1.9 %, p = 0.39), while the incidence of a composite outcome of all-cause death, or requirement of mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during hospitalization was significantly higher in the obesity group (20.1 % versus 15.0 %, p < 0.01). After adjusting confounders in the multivariable logistic regression model, the risk of obesity relative to non-obesity for thrombosis was not significant (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95 % CI, 0.68-2.84, p = 0.37), while the adjusted risk of obesity relative to non-obesity for the composite outcome was significant (adjusted OR, 1.85; 95 % CI, 1.39-2.47, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present large-scale observational study, obesity was not significantly associated with the development of thrombosis during hospitalization; however, it was associated with severity of COVID-19.

Does COVID-19 infection significantly affect liver transplantation? Results of liver transplantation in the COVID-19 era at a single, high-volume centre.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is a proven management method for end-stage cirrhosis and is estimated to have increased life expectancy by 15 years. The COVID-19 pandemic posed a challenge to patients who were candid for a solid-organ transplant. It has been suggested that the outcomes of liver transplants could be adversely affected by the infection, as immunosuppression makes liver transplant candidates more susceptible to adverse effects while predisposing them to higher thrombotic events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, the cases who received liver transplants from January 2018 to March 2022 were assessed regarding early postoperative mortality rate and hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) with COVID-19 infection. This study included 614 cases, of which 48 patients were infected. RESULTS: This study shows that the early COVID-19-related early postoperative mortality rates substantially increased in the elective setting (OR: 2.697), but the results for the acute liver failure were insignificant. The average model for end-stage liver disease score increased significantly during the pandemic due to new regulations. Although mortality rates increased during the pandemic, the data for the vaccination period show that mortality rates have equalised with the prepandemic era. Meanwhile, COVID-19 infection is assumed to have increased HAT by 1.6 times in the elective setting. CONCLUSION: This study shows that COVID-19 infection in an acute liver failure poses comparatively little risk; hence transplantation should be considered in such cases. Meanwhile, the hypercoagulative state induced by the infection predisposes this group of patients to higher HAT rates.

Background rate estimations for thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia: challenges in evaluating rare safety signals following vaccination in real time during a pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: During COVID-19 vaccination programmes, new safety signals have emerged for vaccines, including extremely rare cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia syndrome (TTS). Background event rates before and during the pandemic are essential for contextualisation of such infrequent events. In the literature, most studies do not report an overall TTS event rate. Rather, background rates are mainly reported for subtypes of thrombotic/thromboembolic diagnoses included in the TTS clinical definition mostly by anatomical location, with reported rates for TTS subtypes varying widely. The objective of this study was to report prepandemic TTS background event rates in the general population. METHODS: Prepandemic background TTS rates were generated via secondary data analysis using a cohort design in the IBM Truven MarketScan (now Merative MarketScan) US health insurance claims database, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. Two algorithms were applied: thrombocytopaenia occurring±7 days (algorithm 1) or occurring 1 day prior to ≤14 days after the thrombotic/thromboembolic event (algorithm 2). RESULTS: The study population derived from the MarketScan database analysis included approximately 9.8 million adults (aged ≥18 years; mean age 45 years, 52% females). Using this study population, prepandemic background TTS incidence was estimated as 9.8-11.1 per 100 000 person-years. Event rates were higher in males and increased with age. Similar patterns were observed with both algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an estimate of aggregate prepandemic background TTS event rates including by type of thrombosis/thromboembolism and age group. The background event rates are dependent on the precision of capturing underlying TTS events in variable data sources, and the ability of electronic health records or insurance claims databases to reflect the TTS clinical definition. Differences between reported event rates demonstrate that estimating background event rates for rare, unprecedented safety events is methodologically challenging.

The effect of hereditary thrombotic factors and comorbidities on the severity of COVID-19 disease.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide and presents critical challenges for public health. Due to its chronic and systemic course, COVID-19 is currently accepted as a multi-systemic infectious disease. Here we explore the possible association between disease course and hereditary thrombotic factors and comorbidities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients admitted to the COVID-19 center in the Istanbul Faculty of Medicine were recruited for the study. The patients were classified according to the clinical course, severe vs. mild. Five polymorphic loci were analyzed by multiplex PCR: Factor V Leiden (FVL), FII G20210A, Beta-fibrinogen G-455A, and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T and A1298C. RESULTS: FII G20210A and Beta-fibrinogen G-455A genotypes were significantly higher in the study group compared to the literature. Wildtype genotype (GG) in Factor V Leiden locus was significantly associated with low D-Dimer levels (p =0.013). The GA genotype increased the D-Dimer levels 2.55-times compared to the GG genotype (p =0.003). Moreover, the Beta-fibrinogen G-455G genotype was significantly higher in the LDH>250 group (p =0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of solid tumors in patients with COVID-19 was related to the severity of the disease course. No evidence of a correlation between the severity of the disease and all five thrombotic mutations was found, whereas the FII G20210A and Beta-fibrinogen G-455A mutations were significantly high compared to previously reported Turkish population data and global carrier rates. This finding will need to be verified by further studies with larger samples since it may reflect a likelihood of having the COVID-19 disease. The high carrier frequency of FVL mutation was more likely present in the D-dimer high group generating an increase in the D-dimer levels 2.55-times compared to the wildtype.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

Characterizing Thrombotic Complication Risk Factors Associated With COVID-19 via Heterogeneous Patient Data: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been observed to be associated with venous and arterial thrombosis. The inflammatory disease prolongs hospitalization, and preexisting comorbidities can intensity the thrombotic burden in patients with COVID-19. However, venous thromboembolism, arterial thrombosis, and other vascular complications may go unnoticed in critical care settings. Early risk stratification is paramount in the COVID-19 patient population for proactive monitoring of thrombotic complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this exploratory research was to characterize thrombotic complication risk factors associated with COVID-19 using information from electronic health record (EHR) and insurance claims databases. The goal is to develop an approach for analysis using real-world data evidence that can be generalized to characterize thrombotic complications and additional conditions in other clinical settings as well, such as pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients or in the intensive care unit. METHODS: We extracted deidentified patient data from the insurance claims database IBM MarketScan, and formulated hypotheses on thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19 with respect to patient demographic and clinical factors using logistic regression. The hypotheses were then verified with analysis of deidentified patient data from the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) Mass General Brigham (MGB) patient EHR database. Data were analyzed according to odds ratios, 95% CIs, and P values. RESULTS: The analysis identified significant predictors (P<.001) for thrombotic complications in 184,831 COVID-19 patients out of the millions of records from IBM MarketScan and the MGB RPDR. With respect to age groups, patients 60 years and older had higher odds (4.866 in MarketScan and 6.357 in RPDR) to have thrombotic complications than those under 60 years old. In terms of gender, men were more likely (odds ratio of 1.245 in MarketScan and 1.693 in RPDR) to have thrombotic complications than women. Among the preexisting comorbidities, patients with heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertension, and personal history of thrombosis all had significantly higher odds of developing a thrombotic complication. Cancer and obesity were also associated with odds>1. The results from RPDR validated the IBM MarketScan findings, as they were largely consistent and afford mutual enrichment. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis approach adopted in this study can work across heterogeneous databases from diverse organizations and thus facilitates collaboration. Searching through millions of patient records, the analysis helped to identify factors influencing a phenotype. Use of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients represents only a case study; however, the same design can be used across other disease areas by extracting corresponding disease-specific patient data from available databases.

Association of COVID-19 With Major Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Diseases: A Population-Wide Cohort Study of 48 Million Adults in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces a prothrombotic state, but long-term effects of COVID-19 on incidence of vascular diseases are unclear. METHODS: We studied vascular diseases after COVID-19 diagnosis in population-wide anonymized linked English and Welsh electronic health records from January 1 to December 7, 2020. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios comparing the incidence of arterial thromboses and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence in people without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses by COVID-19 severity, demographic characteristics, and previous history. RESULTS: Among 48 million adults, 125 985 were hospitalized and 1 319 789 were not hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. In England, there were 260 279 first arterial thromboses and 59 421 first VTEs during 41.6 million person-years of follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios for first arterial thrombosis after COVID-19 diagnosis compared with no COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 21.7 (95% CI, 21.0-22.4) in week 1 after COVID-19 diagnosis to 1.34 (95% CI, 1.21-1.48) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios for first VTE after COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 33.2 (95% CI, 31.3-35.2) in week 1 to 1.80 (95% CI, 1.50-2.17) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios were higher, for longer after diagnosis, after hospitalized versus nonhospitalized COVID-19, among Black or Asian versus White people, and among people without versus with a previous event. The estimated whole-population increases in risk of arterial thromboses and VTEs 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.5% and 0.25%, respectively, corresponding to 7200 and 3500 additional events, respectively, after 1.4 million COVID-19 diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: High relative incidence of vascular events soon after COVID-19 diagnosis declines more rapidly for arterial thromboses than VTEs. However, incidence remains elevated up to 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. These results support policies to prevent severe COVID-19 by means of COVID-19 vaccines, early review after discharge, risk factor control, and use of secondary preventive agents in high-risk patients.

Comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with different covid-19 vaccines: international network cohort study from five European countries and the US.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with use of adenovirus based covid-19 vaccines versus mRNA based covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: International network cohort study. SETTING: Routinely collected health data from contributing datasets in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the US. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) registered at any contributing database and who received at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)), from December 2020 to mid-2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or venous or arterial thromboembolic events within the 28 days after covid-19 vaccination. Incidence rate ratios were estimated after propensity scores matching and were calibrated using negative control outcomes. Estimates specific to the database were pooled by use of random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1 332 719 of 3 829 822 first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients were matched to 2 124 339 of 2 149 679 BNT162b2 recipients from Germany and the UK. Additionally, 762 517 of 772 678 people receiving Ad26.COV2.S were matched to 2 851 976 of 7 606 693 receiving BNT162b2 in Germany, Spain, and the US. All 628 164 Ad26.COV2.S recipients from the US were matched to 2 230 157 of 3 923 371 mRNA-1273 recipients. A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were observed in the matched first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of BNT162b2. Comparing ChAdOx1-S with a first dose of BNT162b2 revealed an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.50) and calibrated incidence rate difference of 1.18 (0.57 to 1.8) per 1000 person years). Additionally, a pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio of 2.26 (0.93 to 5.52) for venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome was seen with Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this multinational study, a pooled 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine was observed, as was a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. Although rare, the observed risks after adenovirus based vaccines should be considered when planning further immunisation campaigns and future vaccine development.

Inflammatory and Hemostatic Markers in COVID-19 Patients with Arterial Thrombosis Are Significantly Lower at Hospital Admission than in COVID-19 Patients without Thrombosis.

Patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, data on arterial thromboembolism (ATE) is still limited. We report a case series of thromboembolic events (TE) in 290 COVID-19 patients admitted between October and December 2020 to a Portuguese hospital. Admission levels of various laboratory parameters were evaluated and compared between COVID-19 patients with (TE) and without thrombotic events (non-TE). The overall incidence of isolated ATE was 5.52%, isolated VTE was 2.41% and multiple mixed events was 0.7%. A total of 68% events were detected upon admission to the hospital with 76% corresponding to ATE. Admissions to the Intensive Care Unit were higher in patients with TE, when comparing with the non-TE group (44% vs. 27.2%; p = 0.003). Patients with ATE presented significantly lower levels of CRP (p = 0.007), ferritin (p = 0.045), LDH (p = 0.037), fibrinogen (p = 0.010) and higher monocyte counts (p = 0.033) comparatively to the non-TE patients. These results point to an early occurrence of TE and an increased incidence of ATE over VTE. The less prominent inflammation markers in patients with TE and the early presence of TE in patients with otherwise no reason for hospitalization, may suggest a direct role of SARS-CoV-2 in the thrombotic process.

Bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients on low-molecular-weight heparin and antiplatelet therapy.

BACKGROUND: An increased incidence of thromboembolic events in hospitalised COVID­19 patients has been demonstrated despite the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Antiplatelet therapy prior to admission and early in the disease course has been hypothesised to be protective against thrombosis. OBJECTIVES: To describe the bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID­19 receiving LMWH, with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore predictors of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes, and dosing practices of antiplatelet therapy and LMWH. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional study of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes at Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the first COVID­19 wave, in 808 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID­19 receiving LMWH with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed if predictors were deemed statistically and clinically significant. RESULTS: Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had similar bleeding outcomes compared with patients only receiving LMWH (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 - 4.0). Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had increased odds of developing thrombosis compared with patients only receiving LMWH (OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.1 - 10.7). CONCLUSION: The bleeding risk in COVID­19 patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was not significantly increased. A potentially higher risk of thrombosis in patients receiving LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was observed. However, this could reflect confounding by indication. Randomised studies are required to further evaluate the use of antiplatelet therapy to treat hospitalised patients with COVID­19.