Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 133
Filter
3.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 120, 2022 Feb 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690953

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic is the major public health problem in the world actually. It's associated with high morbidity and mortality. To date, no therapeutic measure has a curative potential. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a drug with immunomodulatory properties that has demonstrated antiviral efficacy in in vitro experiments, with conflicting results in in vivo studies. METHODS: A single-center, prospective and interventional study, that evaluates the impact on mortality of the HCQ use in 154 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a Brazilian public hospital. The study also aims to determine prognostic factors that predict mortality, ICU admission and endotracheal intubation in this population. RESULTS: 154 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR and hospitalized were included. There was a male predominance (87/154, 56.5%), median age 60 years and 88% (136/154) had comorbidities. Among these, 76% (117/154) were admitted to the ICU and 29.2% (45/154) experienced EOT. The OMR was 51.3% (79/154). There was no difference in mortality between patients treated with HCQ (N = 95) and non-HCQ (N = 59) (44.1% × 55.8%, p = 0.758). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years (HR 3.62, p < 0.001), need for mechanical ventilation (HR 2.17, p = 0.001), ≥ 2 comorbidities (HR 1.83, p = 0.049), SAH (HR: 1.56, p = 0.054) were predictors of mortality, as well as no use of prophylactic or therapeutic heparin (HR 3.60, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified admission to the ICU (HR 8.98, p = 0.002) and advanced age (HR 3.37, p < 0.01) as independent predictors of mortality, although, use of heparin (HR 0.25, p = 0.001) was independently associated with a favorable outcome. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the absence of a benefit associated with the use of HCQ in Brazilian patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, prophylactic or therapeutic heparin was an independent predictor for reducing mortality in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Brazil , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Preliminary Data , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
5.
Nat Med ; 28(1): 39-50, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1641982

ABSTRACT

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Complement Inactivating Agents/therapeutic use , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Immunomodulation , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Azetidines/therapeutic use , Bradykinin/analogs & derivatives , Bradykinin/therapeutic use , Bradykinin B2 Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Imatinib Mesylate/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1b/therapeutic use , Interferon-gamma/therapeutic use , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Kallikrein-Kinin System , Piperidines/therapeutic use , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyrimidines/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use
6.
BMJ ; 376: e068407, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612964

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of statin treatment versus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. Results for the anticoagulation randomization have been reported previously. Results for the double blind randomization to atorvastatin versus placebo are reported here. SETTING: 11 hospitals in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with covid-19 admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTION: Atorvastatin 20 mg orally once daily versus placebo, to be continued for 30 days from randomization irrespective of hospital discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality within 30 days from randomization. Prespecified safety outcomes included increase in liver enzyme levels more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinically diagnosed myopathy. A clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Of 605 patients randomized between 29 July 2020 and 4 April 2021 for statin randomization in the INSPIRATION-S trial, 343 were co-randomized to intermediate dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin based regimens, whereas 262 were randomized after completion of the anticoagulation study. 587 of the 605 participants were included in the primary analysis of INSPIRATION-S, reported here: 290 were assigned to atorvastatin and 297 to placebo (median age 57 years (interquartile range 45-68 years); 256 (44%) women). The primary outcome occurred in 95 (33%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 108 (36%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.21). Death occurred in 90 (31%) patients in the atorvastatin group and 103 (35%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.22). Rates for venous thromboembolism were 2% (n=6) in the atorvastatin group and 3% (n=9) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 2.06). Myopathy was not clinically diagnosed in either group. Liver enzyme levels were increased in five (2%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and six (2%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 2.81). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with covid-19 admitted to the ICU, atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality compared with placebo. Treatment was, however, found to be safe. As the overall event rates were lower than expected, a clinically important treatment effect cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486508.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Atorvastatin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care/methods , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Double-Blind Method , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/virology , Young Adult
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(51): e28288, 2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591728

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory disease that spreads rapidly, reaching pandemic status, causing the collapse of numerous health systems, and a strong economic and social impact. The treatment so far has not been well established and there are several clinical trials testing known drugs that have antiviral activity, due to the urgency that the global situation imposes. Drugs with specific mechanisms of action can take years to be discovered, while vaccines may also take a long time to be widely distributed while new virus variants emerge. Thus, drug repositioning has been shown to be a good strategy for defining new therapeutic approaches. Studies of the effect of enriched heparin in the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro assays justify the advance for clinical tests. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A phase I/II triple-blind parallel clinical trial will be conducted. Fifty participants with radiological diagnosis of grade IIA pneumonia will be selected, which will be allocated in 2 arms. Participants allocated in Group 1 (placebo) will receive nebulized 0.9% saline. Participants allocated in Group 2 (intervention) will receive nebulized enriched heparin (2.5 mg/mL 0.9% saline). Both groups will receive the respective solutions on a 4/4 hour basis, for 7 days. The main outcomes of interest will be safety (absence of serious adverse events) and efficacy (measured by the viral load).Protocols will be filled on a daily basis, ranging from day 0 (diagnosis) until day 8.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Saline Solution , Treatment Outcome
8.
Am Heart J ; 246: 136-143, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1588544

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The interaction between thrombosis and inflammation appears central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and likely contributes to poor outcomes. Tissue factor is a driver of disordered coagulation and inflammatory signaling in viral infections and is important for viral replication; therefore, tissue factor may be an important therapeutic target in COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: ASPEN-COVID-19 (NCT04655586) is a randomized, prospective open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE), active comparator Phase 2b trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of recombinant Nematode Anticoagulant Protein c2 (rNAPc2), a potent tissue factor inhibitor, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. This report describes the design of the Phase 2b dose ranging and proof of concept study. Participants are randomly assigned, in a 1:1:2 ratio, to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 by subcutaneous injection on days 1, 3, and 5 or to heparin according to local standard of care; randomization is stratified by baseline D-dimer level (at 2X upper limit of normal). The primary efficacy endpoint for Phase 2b is proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to Day 8 or day of discharge, whichever is earlier. The primary safety endpoint is major or non-major clinically relevant bleeding through Day 8. Phase 2b enrollment began in December 2020 and is projected to complete ∼160 participants by Q4 2021. CONCLUSIONS: ASPEN-COVID-19 will provide important data on a novel therapeutic approach that may improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients beyond available anticoagulants by targeting tissue factor, with potential effects on not only thrombosis but also inflammation and viral propagation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
9.
Anaesthesist ; 70(8): 662-670, 2021 Aug.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575534

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed. METHODS: In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. RESULTS: A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants , Blood Coagulation Disorders , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Sepsis , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/etiology , COVID-19 , Germany , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Sepsis/complications
10.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 50-59, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569147

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19/complications , Factor Xa Inhibitors/pharmacology , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Rivaroxaban/pharmacology , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heparin/administration & dosage , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Treatment Outcome
13.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(21)2021 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1512380

ABSTRACT

Heparin and its derivatives are saving thousands of human lives annually, by successfully preventing and treating thromboembolic events. Although the mode of action during anticoagulation is well studied, their influence on cell behavior is not fully understood as is the risk of bleeding and other side effects. New applications in regenerative medicine have evolved supporting production of cell-based therapeutics or as a substrate for creating functionalized matrices in biotechnology. The currently resurgent interest in heparins is related to the expected combined anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic and anti-viral action against COVID-19. Based on a concise summary of key biochemical and clinical data, this review summarizes the impact for manufacturing and application of cell therapeutics and highlights the need for discriminating the different heparins.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/chemistry , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , Heparin/analogs & derivatives , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Biocompatible Materials/therapeutic use , Cell Adhesion , Hemorrhage/etiology , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Mesenchymal Stem Cells/cytology , Mesenchymal Stem Cells/metabolism , Regenerative Medicine , Thromboembolism/drug therapy
14.
BMJ ; 375: n2400, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470506

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial , Biomarkers/blood , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
15.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 27: 10760296211039288, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448131

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Consensus , Critical Illness , Disease Management , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Fondaparinux/adverse effects , Fondaparinux/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/administration & dosage , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Inpatients , Male , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Risk , Thrombophilia/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control
16.
Postgrad Med ; 133(8): 899-911, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390265

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) is a well-recognized hematologic complication among patients with severe COVID-19 disease, where macro- and micro-thrombosis can lead to multiorgan injury and failure. Major societal guidelines that have published on the management of CAC are based on consensus of expert opinion, with the current evidence available. As a result of limited studies, there are many clinical scenarios that are yet to be addressed, with expert opinion varying on a number of important clinical issues regarding CAC management. METHODS: In this review, we utilize current societal guidelines to provide a framework for practitioners in managing their patients with CAC. We have also provided three clinical scenarios that implement important principles of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Overall, decisions should be made on acase by cases basis and based on the providers understanding of each patient's medical history, clinical course and perceived risk.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Thromboembolism/therapy , Thrombosis/therapy , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Coagulation Disorders/diagnosis , Blood Coagulation Disorders/virology , Drug Monitoring , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Prevalence , Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/virology , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/epidemiology , Thrombosis/virology
17.
J Pediatr ; 229: 33-40, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1382573

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the similarities and differences in the evaluation and treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at hospitals in the US. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from June 16 to July 16, 2020, of US children's hospitals regarding protocols for management of patients with MIS-C. Elements included characteristics of the hospital, clinical definition of MIS-C, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. We summarized key findings and compared results from centers in which >5 patients had been treated vs those in which ≤5 patients had been treated. RESULTS: In all, 40 centers of varying size and experience with MIS-C participated in this protocol survey. Overall, 21 of 40 centers required only 1 day of fever for MIS-C to be considered. In the evaluation of patients, there was often a tiered approach. Intravenous immunoglobulin was the most widely recommended medication to treat MIS-C (98% of centers). Corticosteroids were listed in 93% of protocols primarily for moderate or severe cases. Aspirin was commonly recommended for mild cases, whereas heparin or low molecular weight heparin were to be used primarily in severe cases. In severe cases, anakinra and vasopressors frequently were recommended; 39 of 40 centers recommended follow-up with cardiology. There were similar findings between centers in which >5 patients vs ≤5 patients had been managed. Supplemental materials containing hospital protocols are provided. CONCLUSIONS: There are many similarities yet key differences between hospital protocols for MIS-C. These findings can help healthcare providers learn from others regarding options for managing MIS-C.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Protocols , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Aspirin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospitals , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Surveys and Questionnaires , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , United States/epidemiology , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
19.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 299, 2021 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367680

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic events. The best anticoagulation strategy for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in such patients is still under debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact that different anticoagulation protocols have on filter clotting risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study comparing two different anticoagulation strategies (citrate only and citrate plus intravenous infusion of unfractionated heparin) in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), associated or not with COVID-19 (COV + AKI and COV - AKI, respectively), who were submitted to CRRT. Filter clotting risks were compared among groups. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2020, 238 patients were evaluated: 188 in the COV + AKI group and 50 in the COV - AKI group. Filter clotting during the first filter use occurred in 111 patients (46.6%). Heparin use conferred protection against filter clotting (HR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.25-0.55), resulting in longer filter survival. Bleeding events and the need for blood transfusion were similar between the citrate only and citrate plus unfractionated heparin strategies. In-hospital mortality was higher among the COV + AKI patients than among the COV - AKI patients, although it was similar between the COV + AKI patients who received heparin and those who did not. Filter clotting was more common in patients with D-dimer levels above the median (5990 ng/ml). In the multivariate analysis, heparin was associated with a lower risk of filter clotting (HR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.43), whereas an elevated D-dimer level and high hemoglobin were found to be risk factors for circuit clotting. A diagnosis of COVID-19 was marginally associated with an increased risk of circuit clotting (HR = 2.15, 95% CI 0.99-4.68). CONCLUSIONS: In COV + AKI patients, adding systemic heparin to standard regional citrate anticoagulation may prolong CRRT filter patency by reducing clotting risk with a low risk of complications.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/drug therapy , Citric Acid/pharmacology , Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy/instrumentation , Heparin/pharmacology , Micropore Filters/standards , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Citric Acid/adverse effects , Citric Acid/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy/methods , Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Micropore Filters/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies
20.
Chest ; 161(2): 418-428, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363121

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Critical Illness , Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL