ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Antithrombotic agents have a role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, but the pandemic disrupted medication supply. This study examined changes in the volume of oral and parenteral anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications at US hospitals during the pandemic. METHODS: IQVIA National Sales Perspective (NSP) data was used to determine the monthly volume of anticoagulants and antiplatelets purchased at US hospitals between January 2018 and February 2021. Mean monthly medication volumes, reported as extended units (EUs), and year-over-year changes in medication volume were determined. A single-group interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate changes in the rate of growth of monthly medication volumes before (January 2019-February 2020) and during (March 2020-February 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 43.4% decline in the total volume of anticoagulants and antiplatelets at US hospitals in March 2020, driven by a decrease in heparin volume. Mean monthly volumes decreased significantly (P < 0.05) for parenteral anticoagulants (-106,691,340 EU [95% CI, -200,033,910 to -13,348,780]), oral anticoagulants (-354,800 EU [95% CI, -612,180 to -97,420]), and parenteral antiplatelets (-391,880 EU [95% CI, -535,420 to -248,330]). During the pandemic, the monthly volume of oral anticoagulants, parenteral anticoagulants, and parenteral antiplatelets grew significantly more than in the prepandemic period. This growth was primarily seen in volumes of apixaban, argatroban, enoxaparin, heparin, eptifibatide, and tirofiban. Apixaban and heparin volumes continued a prepandemic uptrend, while argatroban and eptifibatide volumes reversed trend. CONCLUSION: Rapid changes in anticoagulant and antiplatelet volume at US hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the need for institutional protocols to manage fluctuating medication volume demands.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants , COVID-19 , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Eptifibatide , COVID-19/epidemiology , Heparin , HospitalsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the correlation of anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) measures with heparin dosing in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating adult patients managed on ECMO for at least 24 hours who received unfractionated heparin for systemic anticoagulation and were monitored per protocol using anti-Xa and/or aPTT coagulation assays. The primary outcome was the correlation between aPTT and anti-Xa measures. The secondary outcomes included, but were not limited to, the number of hemorrhagic and thrombotic events. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included in this study. In the 227 events where both laboratory values were collected, a weak correlation was found between anti-Xa and aPTT (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.4, P = 0). In the 12 hemorrhagic events that occurred, aPTT was collected for only 10 events. Fifty percent of those events were associated with supratherapeutic aPTT, while none of the hemorrhagic events were associated with a supratherapeutic anti-Xa level. Two thrombotic events occurred, one of which had subtherapeutic anti-Xa and aPTT and the other of which had neither an anti-Xa nor aPTT measure on the day the event occurred. CONCLUSION: In a population of patients on ECMO, many of whom had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a weak association between aPTT and anti-Xa measures. Hemorrhagic evens were more common than thrombotic events; however, a relationship between these events and aPTT or anti-Xa levels was not determined. The applicability of these findings to an ECMO population without COVID-19 is unknown and will require further study.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Adult , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Partial Thromboplastin Time , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Heparin, Low-Molecular-WeightABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, management of anticoagulation therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was simplified to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulation, mainly owing to the risk of drug-drug interactions. However, not all oral anticoagulants carry the same risk. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, and multicenter study that consecutively included hospitalized patients with AF anticoagulated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation or edoxaban concomitantly with empirical COVID-19 therapy. Time-to-event (mortality, total bleeds, and admissions to ICU) curves, using an unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model adjusted for potential confounders were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included (80.3 ± 7.7 years, 50.0% men, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 2.6 ± 1.0). During hospitalization, patients were taking azithromycin (98.7%), hydroxychloroquine (89.7%), and ritonavir/lopinavir (81.5%). The mean length of hospital stay was 14.6 ± 7.2 days, and total follow-up was 31.6 ± 13.4 days; 12.9% of patients required admission to ICU, 18.5% died, and 9.9% had a bleeding complication (34.8% major bleeding). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients taking LMWH (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 13.3 ± 6.5 days; P = .005), but mortality and total bleeds were similar in patients treated with edoxaban and those treated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates, arterial and venous thromboembolic complications, and bleeds did not significantly differ between AF patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with edoxaban or LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. However, the duration of hospitalization was significantly lower with edoxaban. Edoxaban had a similar therapeutic profile to LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation and may provide additional benefits.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , COVID-19 , Stroke , Male , Humans , Female , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulants , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Stroke/etiology , HeparinABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study was carried out to compare characteristics and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 during first, second, and third waves. METHODS: We included consecutive adults admitted to the intensive care unit between March 2020 and July 2021. We compared three groups defined by the epidemic intake phase: waves 1 (W1), 2 (W2), and 3 (W3). RESULTS: We included 289 patients. Two hundred and eight (72%) patients were men with a median age of 63 years (IQR: 54-72), of whom 68 (23.6%) died in hospital. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) was inversely associated with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in multivariate analysis (p = 0.003) but not dexamethasone (p = 0.25). The day-90 mortality rate did not vary from W1 (27.4%) to W2 (23.9%) and W3 (22%), p = 0.67. By multivariate analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94/year, p < 0.001), immunodeficiency (OR: 0.33, p = 0.04), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.26, p < 0.001), and invasive MV (OR: 0.13, p < 0.001) were inversely associated with higher day-90 survival as opposed to the use of intermediate heparin thromboprophylaxis dose (OR: 3.21, p = 0.006). HFNO use and dexamethasone were not associated with higher day-90 survival (p = 0.24 and p = 0.56, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, survival did not change between first, second, and third waves while the use of invasive MV decreased. HFNO or intravenous steroids were not associated with better outcomes, whereas the use of intermediate dose of heparin for thromboprophylaxis was associated with higher day-90 survival. Larger multicentric studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Venous Thromboembolism , Male , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , Female , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulants , Critical Illness , Heparin/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Oxygen , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/chemically inducedABSTRACT
In this work, we isolated two new sulfated glycans from the body wall of the sea cucumber Thyonella gemmata: one fucosylated chondroitin sulfate (TgFucCS) (17.5 ± 3.5% kDa) and one sulfated fucan (TgSF) (383.3 ± 2.1% kDa). NMR results showed the TgFucCS backbone composed of [â3)-ß-N-acetylgalactosamine-(1â4)-ß-glucuronic acid-(1â] with 70% 4-sulfated and 30% 4,6-disulfated GalNAc units and one-third of the GlcA units decorated at the C3 position with branching α-fucose (Fuc) units either 4-sulfated (65%) or 2,4-disulfated (35%) and the TgSF structure composed of a tetrasaccharide repeating unit of [â3)-α-Fuc2,4S-(1â2)-α-Fuc4S-(1â3)-α-Fuc2S-(1â3)-α-Fuc2S-(1â]n. Inhibitory properties of TgFucCS and TgSF were investigated using SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus coated with S-proteins of the wild-type (Wuhan-Hu-1) or the delta (B.1.617.2) strains and in four different anticoagulant assays, comparatively with unfractionated heparin. Molecular binding to coagulation (co)-factors and S-proteins was investigated by competitive surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy. Among the two sulfated glycans tested, TgSF showed significant anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity against both strains together with low anticoagulant properties, indicating a good candidate for future studies in drug development.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sea Cucumbers , Animals , Anticoagulants/pharmacology , Sea Cucumbers/chemistry , Sulfates/chemistry , Heparin , SARS-CoV-2 , Polysaccharides/chemistryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Blood coagulation abnormalities play a major role in COVID-19 pathophysiology. However, the specific details of hypercoagulation and anticoagulation treatment require investigation. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of the coagulation system by means of integral and local clotting assays in COVID-19 patients on admission to the hospital and in hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: Thrombodynamics (TD), thromboelastography (TEG), and standard clotting assays were performed in 153 COVID-19 patients observed in a hospital setting. All patients receiving treatment, except extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients (n = 108), were administered therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) depending on body weight. The ECMO patients (n = 15) were administered unfractionated heparin (UFH). RESULTS: On admission, the patients (n = 30) had extreme hypercoagulation by all integral assays: TD showed hypercoagulation in ~75% of patients, while TEG showed hypercoagulation in ~50% of patients. The patients receiving treatment showed a significant heparin response based on TD; 77% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 15% were normal, and 8% remained in hypercoagulation. TEG showed less of a response to heparin: 24% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 59% were normal and 17% remained in hypercoagulation. While hypocoagulation is likely due to heparin treatment, remaining in significant hypercoagulation may indicate insufficient anticoagulation for some patients, which is in agreement with our clinical findings. There were 3 study patients with registered thrombosis episodes, and all were outside the target range for TD parameters typical for effective thromboprophylaxis (1 patient was in weak hypocoagulation, atypical for the LMWH dose used, and 2 patients remained in the hypercoagulation range despite therapeutic LMWH doses). CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 have severe hypercoagulation, which persists in some patients receiving anticoagulation treatment, while significant hypocoagulation is observed in others. The data suggest critical issues of hemostasis balance in these patients and indicate the potential importance of integral assays in its control.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombophilia , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Hemostasis , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/etiologyABSTRACT
Fondaparinux sodium is a chemically synthesized selective factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events, that is, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and superficial vein thrombosis, in acutely ill (including those affected by COVID-19 or cancer patients) and those undergoing surgeries. Since its approval in 2002, the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux is well demonstrated by many clinical studies, establishing the value of fondaparinux in clinical practice. Some of the advantages with fondaparinux are its chemical nature of synthesis, minimal risk of contamination, 100% absolute bioavailability subcutaneously, instant onset of action, a long half-life, direct renal excretion, fewer adverse reactions when compared with direct oral anticoagulants, and being an ideal alternative in conditions where oral anticoagulants are not approved for use or in patients intolerant to low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). In the last decade, the real-world use of fondaparinux has been explored in other conditions such as acute coronary syndromes, bariatric surgery, in patients developing vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and in pregnant women with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or those intolerant to LMWH. The emerging data from these studies have culminated in recent updates in the guidelines that recommend the use of fondaparinux under various conditions. This paper aims to review the recent data and the subsequent updates in the recommendations of various guidelines on the use of fondaparinux sodium.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Venous Thrombosis , Pregnancy , Humans , Female , Fondaparinux/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Polysaccharides/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , HeparinABSTRACT
Alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT), a serine protease inhibitor (serpin), is increasingly recognized to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection and counter many of the pathogenic mechanisms of COVID-19. Herein, we reviewed the epidemiologic evidence, the molecular mechanisms, and the clinical evidence that support this paradigm. As background to our discussion, we first examined the basic mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection and contend that despite the availability of vaccines and anti-viral agents, COVID-19 remains problematic due to viral evolution. We next underscored that measures to prevent severe COVID-19 currently exists but teeters on a balance and that current treatment for severe COVID-19 remains grossly suboptimal. We then reviewed the epidemiologic and clinical evidence that AAT deficiency increases risk of COVID-19 infection and of more severe disease, and the experimental evidence that AAT inhibits cell surface transmembrane protease 2 (TMPRSS2) - a host serine protease required for SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells - and that this inhibition may be augmented by heparin. We also elaborated on the panoply of other activities of AAT (and heparin) that could mitigate severity of COVID-19. Finally, we evaluated the available clinical evidence for AAT treatment of COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , alpha 1-Antitrypsin Deficiency , Humans , Heparin , Molecular Epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) occurs in approximately 3% of patients receiving heparinoids. About 30-75% of patients with type 2 of HIT develop thrombosis as a result of platelet activation. The most important clinical symptom is thrombocytopenia. Patients with severe COVID-19 are among those receiving heparinoids. This meta-analysis performed to picture the current knowledge and results of published studies in this field. Three search engines were searched and 575 papers were found. After evaluation, 37 articles were finally selected of which 13 studies were quantitatively analyzed. The pooled frequency rate of suspected cases with HIT in 13 studies with 11,241 patients was 1.7%. The frequency of HIT was 8.2% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation subgroup with 268 patients and 0.8% in the hospitalization subgroup with 10,887 patients. The coincidence of these two conditions may increase the risk of thrombosis. Of the 37 patients with COVID-19 and confirmed HIT, 30 patients (81%) were treated in the intensive care unit or had severe COVID-19. The most commonly used anticoagulants were UFH in 22 cases (59.4%). The median platelet count before treatment was 237 (176-290) x 103/µl and the median nadir platelet count was 52 (31-90.5) x 103/µl.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparinoids , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparinoids/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Thrombosis/etiologyABSTRACT
The serotonin release assay (SRA) has been the gold-standard assay for detection of heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies and integral for the diagnosis for heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (HIT). In 2021, a thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome was reported after adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccination. This vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome (VITT) proved to be a severe immune platelet activation syndrome manifested by unusual thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, very elevated plasma D-dimer, and a high mortality even with aggressive therapy (anticoagulation and plasma exchange). While the platelet-activating antibodies in both HIT and VITT are directed toward platelet factor 4 (PF4), important differences have been found. These differences have required modifications to the SRA to improve detection of functional VITT antibodies. Functional platelet activation assays remain essential in the diagnostic workup of HIT and VITT. Here we detail the application of SRA for the assessment of HIT and VITT antibodies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Serotonin , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Antibodies , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/etiology , Platelet Factor 4/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) represents an autoimmune process whereby antibodies are formed against heparin in complex with platelet factor 4 (PF4) after heparin administration. These antibodies can be detected by a variety of immunological assays, including ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and by chemiluminescence on the AcuStar instrument. However, pathological HIT antibodies are those that activate platelets in a platelet activation assay and cause thrombosis in vivo. We would tend to call this condition heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (HITT), although some workers instead use the truncated abbreviation HIT. Vaccine-induced (immune) thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) instead reflects an autoimmune process whereby antibodies are formed against PF4 after administration of a vaccine, most notably adenovirus-based vaccines directed against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). Although both VITT and HITT reflect similar pathological processes, they have different origins and are detected in different ways. Most notable is that anti-PF4 antibodies in VITT can only be detected immunologically by ELISA assays, tending to be negative in rapid assays such as that using the AcuStar. Moreover, functional platelet activation assays otherwise used for HITT may need to be modified to detect platelet activation in VITT.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Vaccines , Humans , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Heparin/adverse effects , Thrombosis/chemically induced , Antibodies , Vaccines/adverse effects , Platelet Factor 4/adverse effectsABSTRACT
A high rate of thromboembolism and a high risk of death have been reported regarding hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we noticed that clinicians in some comparative studies used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether DOACs are better than recommended heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, a direct comparison of the prophylactic effects and safety between DOACs and heparin is needed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to December 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing the efficacy or safety of DOACs with that of heparin in preventing thromboembolism for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. We assessed endpoints and publication bias using Stata 14.0. Five studies comprising 1360 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate cases were identified in the databases. Comparing the embolism incidence, we found that DOACs had a better effect than heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), in preventing thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43-0.91], P = 0.014). Considering safety, DOACs resulted in less bleeding than heparin during hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.11-2.44], P = 0.411). Similar mortality was discovered in the 2 groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59-1.51], P = 0.797). In noncritically hospitalized patients with COVID-19, DOACs are superior to heparin, even LMWH, in preventing thromboembolism. Compared with heparin, DOACs have a lower trend of bleeding and yield a similar mortality rate. Therefore, DOACs may be a better alternative for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Neoplasms/complicationsABSTRACT
Heparin-like sulfated polysaccharide, acharan sulfate, was purified from the mucus of an African giant snail with unique sulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). This study reported on finding novel and safe heparin resources from Achatina fulica for further use as well as easy isolation and purification of the active fraction from the initial raw material. Its structure was characterised by a strong-anion exchange combined with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The results indicated that the potential acharan sulfate fraction is a glycosaminoglycan composed of several repeating disaccharide units, namely, of â4)-α-IdoA(2S)(1â4)-α-GlcNAc/GlcNAc(6S)/GlcNSO3(6S)(1â, and hence, presents heterogeneity regarding negative net charge density. Furthermore, the heparinase digests inhibit the binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the ACE2 receptor. In summary, the acharan sulfate presented in this work has shown its great potential for application in the preparation of sulfated polysaccharides as an alternative to heparin with important biological activity.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparin , Animals , Humans , Heparin/chemistry , Sulfates , SARS-CoV-2 , Glycosaminoglycans/pharmacology , Glycosaminoglycans/chemistry , Polysaccharides/chemistry , Snails/chemistry , Snails/metabolism , Mucus/metabolismABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterised by hyperinflammatory state, systemic coagulopathies, and multiorgan involvement, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We here describe our preliminary clinical experience with COVID-19 patients treated via an early initiation of extracorporeal blood purification combined with systemic heparinisation and respiratory support. METHODS: Fifteen patients were included; several biomarkers associated with COVID-19 severity were monitored. Personalised treatment was tailored according to the levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor alpha, C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, thrombocyte counts, D-dimers, and fibrinogen. Treatment consisted of respiratory support, extracorporeal blood purification using the AN69ST (oXiris®) hemofilter, and 300 U/kg heparin to maintain activation clotting time ≥ 180 seconds. RESULTS: Ten patients presented with severe to critical disease (dyspnoea, hypoxia, respiratory rate > 30/min, peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%, or > 50% lung involvement on X-ray imaging). The median intensive care unit length of stay was 9.3 days (interquartile range 5.3-10.1); two patients developed ARDS and died after 5 and 26 days. Clinical improvement was associated with normalisation (increase) of thrombocytes and white blood cells, stable levels of IL-6 (< 50 ng/mL), and a decrease of CRP and fibrinogen. CONCLUSION: Continuous monitoring of COVID-19 severity biomarkers and radiological imaging is crucial to assess disease progression, uncontrolled inflammation, and to avert irreversible multiorgan failure. The combination of systemic heparin anticoagulation regimens and extracorporeal blood purification using cytokine-adsorbing hemofilters may reduce hyperinflammation, prevent coagulopathy, and support clinical recovery.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a rare syndrome characterized by high-titer anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies, thrombocytopenia and arterial and venous thrombosis in unusual sites, as cerebral venous sinuses and splanchnic veins. VITT has been described to occur almost exclusively after administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S adenovirus vector- based COVID-19 vaccines. Clinical and laboratory features of VITT resemble those of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). It has been hypothesized that negatively charged polyadenylated hexone proteins of the AdV vectors could act as heparin to induce the conformational changes of PF4 molecule that lead to the formation of anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies. The anti-PF4 immune response in VITT is fostered by the presence of a proinflammatory milieu, elicited by some impurities found in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, as well as by soluble spike protein resulting from alternative splice events. Anti-PF4 antibodies bind PF4, forming immune complexes which activate platelets, monocytes and granulocytes, resulting in the VITT's immunothrombosis. The reason why only a tiny minority of patents receiving AdV-based COVID-19 vaccines develop VITT is still unknown. It has been hypothesized that individual intrinsic factors, either acquired (i.e., pre-priming of B cells to produce anti-PF4 antibodies by previous contacts with bacteria or viruses) or inherited (i.e., differences in platelet T-cell ubiquitin ligand-2 [TULA-2] expression) can predispose a few subjects to develop VITT. A better knowledge of the mechanistic basis of VITT is essential to improve the safety and the effectiveness of future vaccines and gene therapies using adenovirus vectors.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Vaccines , Humans , Antigen-Antibody Complex , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Ad26COVS1 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Ligands , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , COVID-19/prevention & control , Platelet Factor 4/genetics , Platelet Factor 4/metabolism , Heparin/adverse effects , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Vaccines/adverse effects , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic/chemically induced , UbiquitinsABSTRACT
The length of stay (LOS) in hospital varied considerably in different patients with COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. The study aimed to explore the clinical characteristics of Omicron patients, identify prognostic factors, and develop a prognostic model to predict the LOS of Omicron patients. This was a single center retrospective study in a secondary medical institution in China. A total of 384 Omicron patients in China were enrolled. According to the analyzed data, we employed LASSO to select the primitive predictors. The predictive model was constructed by fitting a linear regression model using the predictors selected by LASSO. Bootstrap validation was used to test performance and eventually we obtained the actual model. Among these patients, 222 (57.8%) were female, the median age of patients was 18 years and 349 (90.9%) completed two doses of vaccination. Patients on admission diagnosed as mild were 363 (94.5%). Five variables were selected by LASSO and a linear model, and those with P < 0.05 were integrated into the analysis. It shows that if Omicron patients receive immunotherapy or heparin, the LOS increases by 36% or 16.1%. If Omicron patients developed rhinorrhea or occur familial cluster, the LOS increased by 10.4% or 12.3%, respectively. Moreover, if Omicron patients' APTT increased by one unit, the LOS increased by 0.38%. Five variables were identified, including immunotherapy, heparin, familial cluster, rhinorrhea, and APTT. A simple model was developed and evaluated to predict the LOS of Omicron patients. The formula is as follows: Predictive LOS = exp(1*2.66263 + 0.30778*Immunotherapy + 0.1158*Familiar cluster + 0.1496*Heparin + 0.0989*Rhinorrhea + 0.0036*APTT).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Male , Length of Stay , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Heparin , Hospitals , RhinorrheaABSTRACT
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Venous Thrombosis , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic useABSTRACT
For the past 3 years, our daily lives have been largely dictated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In many people, this infectious disease leads to long-lasting symptoms, which can vary greatly in form and intensity between individuals. This report describes the case of a young patient who had no health restrictions until she came into contact with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As part of a post-COVID syndrome, she not only temporarily lost her ability to work, but was also no longer able to manage her daily life independently. A crucial therapeutic approach, in this case, was the use of heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation (H.E.L.P.) apheresis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Female , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Heparin/therapeutic use , PandemicsABSTRACT
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but serious complication of adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Similar to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), antibodies reacting to platelet factor 4 (PF4) are responsible for platelet activation in VITT. The diagnosis of VITT includes the detection of anti-PF4 antibodies. Particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA) is one of the rapid immunoassays that is commonly used in the diagnosis of HIT to detect anti-PF4 antibodies. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of PaGIA in patients suspected of VITT. In this retrospective, single-center study, the correlation between PaGIA, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and modified heparin-induced platelet aggregation assay (HIPA) in patients with findings suggestive of VITT was investigated. A commercially available PF4 rapid immunoassay (ID PaGIA H/PF4, Bio-Rad-DiaMed GmbH, Switzerland) and an anti-PF4/heparin EIA (ZYMUTEST HIA IgG, Hyphen Biomed) were used according to manufacturer's instructions. Modified HIPA was accepted as the gold standard test. Between March 8 and November 19, 2021, a total of 34 samples from clinically well-characterized patients (14 males, 20 females, mean age: 48.2 ± 18.2 years) were analyzed with PaGIA, EIA, and modified HIPA. VITT was diagnosed in 15 patients. Sensitivity and specificity of PaGIA were 54 and 67%, respectively. Anti-PF4/heparin optical density values were not significantly different between PaGIA positive and negative samples (p = 0.586). The sensitivity and specificity of EIA, on the other hand, were 87 and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, PaGIA is not reliable in the diagnosis of VITT because of its low sensitivity and specificity.