External validation of the ADA score for predicting thrombosis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients from the APEX Trial.

The ADA (Age-D-dimer-Albumin) score was developed to identify hospitalized patients at an increased risk for thrombosis in the coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) setting. The study aimed to validate the ADA score for predicting thrombosis in a non-COVID-19 medically ill population from the APEX trial. The APEX trial was a multinational, randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of betrixaban vs. enoxaparin among acutely ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. The study endpoints included the composite of arterial or venous thrombosis and its components. Metrics of model calibration and discrimination were computed for assessing the performance of the ADA score as compared to the IMPROVE score, a well-validated VTE risk assessment model. Among 7,119 medical inpatients, 209 (2.9%) had a thrombosis event up to 77 days of follow-up. The ADA score demonstrated good calibration for both arterial and venous thrombosis, whereas the IMPROVE score had adequate calibration for venous thrombosis (p > 0.05 from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test). For discriminating arterial and venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.620 [95% CI: 0.582 to 0.657] vs. 0.590 [95% CI: 0.556 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.030 [95% CI: -0.022 to 0.081]; p = 0.255). Similarly, for discriminating arterial thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.582 [95% CI: 0.534 to 0.629] vs. 0.609 [95% CI: 0.564 to 0.653]; ∆ c statistic = -0.027 [95% CI: -0.091 to 0.036]; p = 0.397). For discriminating venous thrombosis, the ADA score was modestly superior to the IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.664 [95% CI: 0.607 to 0.722] vs. 0.573 [95% CI: 0.521 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.091 [95% CI: 0.011 to 0.172]; p = 0.026). The ADA score had a higher sensitivity (0.579 [95% CI: 0.512 to 0.646]; vs. 0.440 [95% CI: 0.373 to 0.507]) but lower specificity (0.625 [95% CI: 0.614 to 0.637] vs. 0.747 [95% CI: 0.737 to 0.758]) than the IMPROVE score for predicting thrombosis. Among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the APEX trial, the ADA score demonstrated good calibration but suboptimal discrimination for predicting thrombosis. The findings support the use of either the ADA or IMPROVE score for thrombosis risk assessment. The applicability of the ADA score to non-COVID-19 populations warrants further research.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01583218.

Effect of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chloroquine or its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with or without azithromycin (AZ) have been widely investigated in observational studies as a treatment option for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The network meta-analysis aims to summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if AZ or HCQ is associated with improved clinical outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to March 7, 2021. We included published RCTs that investigated the efficacy of AZ, HCQ, or its combination among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the use of mechanical ventilation. The pooled odds ratio was calculated using a random-effect model. A total of 10 RCTs were analyzed. Participant's mean age ranged from 40.4 to 66.5 years. There was no significant effect on mortality associated with AZ plus HCQ (odds ratio [OR] = 0.562 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.168-1.887]), AZ alone (OR = 0.965 [95% CI: 0.865-1.077]), or HCQ alone (OR = 1.122 [95% CI: 0.995-1.266]; p = 0.06). Similarly, based on pooled effect sizes derived from direct and indirect evidence, none of the treatments had a significant benefit in decreasing the use of mechanical ventilation. No heterogeneity was identified (Cochran's Q = 1.68; p = 0.95; τ2 = 0; I2 = 0% [95% CI: 0%-0%]). Evidence from RCTs suggests that AZ with or without HCQ was not associated with a significant effect on the mortality or mechanical ventilation rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. More research is needed to explore therapeutics agents that can effectively reduce the mortality or severity of COVID-19.

Current Opinion on the use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among acutely ill medical patients. Although VTE prophylaxis is part of post-discharge clinical care in surgical patients, there is controversy regarding its use in acutely ill medical patients and the current guideline statements suggest against its routine use. Recent clinical trials (APEX, MAGELLAN and MARINER) compared the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (including betrixaban and rivaroxaban) with the standard of the care, enoxaparin, to identify the risk-benefit tradeoff. In this review, we summarized the key findings from these trials and substudies and recent updates in society guidelines regarding VTE prevention. In addition, we discussed the potential barriers, cost-effectiveness, and COVID-19 with respect to the implementation of extended-duration or post-discharge usage of direct oral anticoagulants.

Association between red blood cell distribution width and mortality and severity among patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emerging evidence has underscored the potential usefulness of red blood cell distribution width (RDW) measurement in predicting the mortality and disease severity of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the association of the plasma RDW levels with adverse prognosis in COVID-19 patients. A comprehensive literature search from inception to September 2020 was performed to harvest original studies reporting RDW on admission and clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. RDW levels were compared between cases (patients who died or developed more severe symptoms) and controls (patients who survived or developed less severe symptoms). A total of 14,866 subjects from 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Higher levels of RDW were associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients (mean differences = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.47-0.97; I2 = 89.51%). Deceased patients had higher levels of RDW compared to patients who survived (mean differences = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.63-1.23; I2 = 85.58%). Severely ill COVID-19 patients showed higher levels of RDW, as opposed to patients classified to have milder symptoms (mean differences = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.28-0.94; I2 = 82.18%). Elevated RDW levels were associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. This finding warrants further research on whether RDW could be utilized as a simple and reliable biomarker for predicting COVID-19 severity and whether RDW is mechanistically linked with COVID-19 pathophysiology.

COVID-19: A double threat to takotsubo cardiomyopathy and spontaneous coronary artery dissection?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic that has affected millions of individuals worldwide. Prior studies suggest that COVID-19 may be associated with an increased risk for various cardiovascular disorders, such as myocardial injury, arrhythmia, acute coronary syndrome, and venous thromboembolism. Early reports of non-COVID-19 patients have described the concurrence of takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TTC) and spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). However, the interplay between COVID-19, TTC and SCAD has not been well established. We herein propose two sets of two-hit hypotheses for the development of SCAD and TTC in the context of COVID-19. The first two-hit hypothesis explains the development of SCAD, in which TTC-associated formation of vulnerable coronary substrate serves as the first hit (predisposing factor), and COVID-19-associated inflammation and vascular disruption serves as the second hit (precipitating factor). The second two-hit hypothesis is proposed to explain the development of TTC, in which SCAD-associated formation of vulnerable myocardial substrate serves as the first hit, and COVID-19-associated sympathetic overactivity serves as the second hit. Under this conceptual framework, COVID-19 poses a double threat for the development of SCAD (among patients with underlying TTC) as well as TTC (among patients with underlying SCAD), thereby forming a reciprocal causation. This hypothesis provides a rationale for the joint assessment of TTC and SCAD in COVID-19 patients with pertinent cardiovascular manifestations.

Venous Thromboembolism among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Undergoing Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence indicates that prophylactic-dose thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate to control the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-dimer measurement is useful for VTE risk stratification among COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to offer benchmark data on the incidence of VTE and to examine the difference in D-dimer levels among anticoagulated COVID-19 patients with and without VTE incident. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review of PubMed from inception to May 2020 was performed for original studies that reported the frequency of VTE and death among COVID-19 patients who received thromboprophylaxis on hospitalization. The endpoints included VTE (a composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT)), PE, DVT, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 11 cohort studies were included. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 23.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.2% to 33.7%; I2 = 93%) developed VTE despite anticoagulation. PE and DVT were detected in 11.6% (95% CI, 7.5% to 17.5%; I2 = 92%) and 11.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 21.3%; I2 = 93%) of patients, respectively. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had a higher risk for VTE (30.4% )95% CI, 19.6% to 43.9%)) than those in the ward (13.0% (95% CI, 5.9% to 26.3%)). The mortality was estimated at 21.3% (95% CI, 17.0% to 26.4%; I2 = 53%). COVID-19 patients who developed VTE had higher D-dimer levels than those who did not develop VTE (mean difference, 2.05 µg/mL; 95% CI, 0.30 to 3.80 µg/mL; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The heightened and heterogeneous risk of VTE in COVID-19 despite prophylactic anticoagulation calls into research on the pathogenesis of thromboembolic complications and strategy of thromboprophylaxis and risk stratification. Prominent elevation of D-dimer may be associated with VTE development and can be used to identify high-risk subsets.