Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS: Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Development and validation of a prognostic model for the early identification of COVID-19 patients at risk of developing common long COVID symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demands reliable prognostic models for estimating the risk of long COVID. We developed and validated a prediction model to estimate the probability of known common long COVID symptoms at least 60 days after acute COVID-19. METHODS: The prognostic model was built based on data from a multicentre prospective Swiss cohort study. Included were adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February and December 2020 and treated as outpatients, at ward or intensive/intermediate care unit. Perceived long-term health impairments, including reduced exercise tolerance/reduced resilience, shortness of breath and/or tiredness (REST), were assessed after a follow-up time between 60 and 425 days. The data set was split into a derivation and a geographical validation cohort. Predictors were selected out of twelve candidate predictors based on three methods, namely the augmented backward elimination (ABE) method, the adaptive best-subset selection (ABESS) method and model-based recursive partitioning (MBRP) approach. Model performance was assessed with the scaled Brier score, concordance c statistic and calibration plot. The final prognostic model was determined based on best model performance. RESULTS: In total, 2799 patients were included in the analysis, of which 1588 patients were in the derivation cohort and 1211 patients in the validation cohort. The REST prevalence was similar between the cohorts with 21.6% (n = 343) in the derivation cohort and 22.1% (n = 268) in the validation cohort. The same predictors were selected with the ABE and ABESS approach. The final prognostic model was based on the ABE and ABESS selected predictors. The corresponding scaled Brier score in the validation cohort was 18.74%, model discrimination was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.81), calibration slope was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78 to 1.06) and calibration intercept was -0.06 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.09). CONCLUSION: The proposed model was validated to identify COVID-19-infected patients at high risk for REST symptoms. Before implementing the prognostic model in daily clinical practice, the conduct of an impact study is recommended.

Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 (OVID): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: OVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed. FINDINGS: At the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates. FUNDING: SNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

External Validation of the Modified 4C Deterioration Model and 4C Mortality Score for COVID-19 Patients in a Swiss Tertiary Hospital.

Prognostic models to predict the deterioration and mortality risk in COVID-19 patients are utterly needed to assist in informed decision making. Most of these models, however, are at high risk of bias, model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Here, we aimed to externally validate the modified (urea was omitted) 4C Deterioration Model and 4C Mortality Score in a cohort of Swiss COVID-19 patients and, second, to evaluate whether the inclusion of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) improves the predictive performance of the models. We conducted a retrospective single-centre study with adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Both prediction models were updated by including the NLR. Model performance was assessed via the models' discriminatory performance (area under the curve, AUC), calibration (intercept and slope), and their performance overall (Brier score). For the validation of the 4C Deterioration Model and Mortality Score, 546 and 527 patients were included, respectively. In total, 133 (24.4%) patients met the definition of in-hospital deterioration. Discrimination of the 4C Deterioration Model was AUC = 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.82). A total of 55 (10.44%) patients died in hospital. Discrimination of the 4C Mortality Score was AUC = 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.89). There was no evidence for an incremental value of the NLR. Our data confirm the role of the modified 4C Deterioration Model and Mortality Score as reliable prediction tools for the risk of deterioration and mortality. There was no evidence that the inclusion of NLR improved model performance.

Immunoglobulin signature predicts risk of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Following acute infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) a significant proportion of individuals develop prolonged symptoms, a serious condition termed post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome (PACS) or long COVID. Predictors of PACS are needed. In a prospective multicentric cohort study of 215 individuals, we study COVID-19 patients during primary infection and up to one year later, compared to healthy subjects. We discover an immunoglobulin (Ig) signature, based on total IgM and IgG3 levels, which - combined with age, history of asthma bronchiale, and five symptoms during primary infection - is able to predict the risk of PACS independently of timepoint of blood sampling. We validate the score in an independent cohort of 395 individuals with COVID-19. Our results highlight the benefit of measuring Igs for the early identification of patients at high risk for PACS, which facilitates the study of targeted treatment and pathomechanisms of PACS.

Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Whereas severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibody tests are increasingly being used to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the determinants of these antibody responses remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate systemic and mucosal antibody responses toward SARS-CoV-2 in mild versus severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. METHODS: Using immunoassays specific for SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, we determined SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG in sera and mucosal fluids of 2 cohorts, including SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients (n = 64) and PCR-positive and PCR-negtive health care workers (n = 109). RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA titers in patients with mild COVID-19 were often transiently positive, whereas serum IgG titers remained negative or became positive 12 to 14 days after symptom onset. Conversely, patients with severe COVID-19 showed a highly significant increase of SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA and IgG titers after symptom onset. Very high titers of SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA were correlated with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Interestingly, some health care workers with negative SARS-CoV-2-specific serum antibody titers showed SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA in mucosal fluids with virus-neutralizing capacity in some cases. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA titers in nasal fluids were inversely correlated with age. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic antibody production against SARS-CoV-2 develops mainly in patients with severe COVID-19, with very high IgA titers seen in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, whereas mild disease may be associated with transient production of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies but may stimulate mucosal SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA secretion.

Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (the OVID study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The OVID study will demonstrate whether prophylactic-dose enoxaparin improves survival and reduces hospitalizations in symptomatic ambulatory patients aged 50 or older diagnosed with COVID-19, a novel viral disease characterized by severe systemic, pulmonary, and vessel inflammation and coagulation activation. TRIAL DESIGN: The OVID study is conducted as a multicentre open-label superiority randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion Criteria 1. Signed patient informed consent after being fully informed about the study's background. 2. Patients aged 50 years or older with a positive test for SARS-CoV2 in the past 5 days and eligible for ambulatory treatment. 3. Presence of respiratory symptoms (i.e. cough, sore throat, or shortness of breath) or body temperature >37.5° C. 4. Ability of the patient to travel to the study centre by private transportation, performed either by an accompanying person from the same household or by the patient themselves 5. Ability to comply with standard hygiene requirements at the time of in-hospital visit, including a face mask and hand disinfectant. 6. Ability to walk from car to study centre or reach it by wheelchair transport with the help of an accompanying person from the same household also complying with standard hygiene requirements. 7. Ability to self-administer prefilled enoxaparin injections after instructions received at the study centre or availability of a person living with the patient to administer enoxaparin. Exclusion Criteria 1. Any acute or chronic condition posing an indication for anticoagulant treatment, e.g. atrial fibrillation, prior venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute confirmed symptomatic VTE, acute coronary syndrome. 2. Anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis deemed necessary in view of the patient's history, comorbidity or predisposing strong risk factors for thrombosis: a. Any of the following events occurring in the prior 30 days: fracture of lower limb, hospitalization for heart failure, hip/knee replacement, major trauma, spinal cord injury, stroke, b. previous VTE, c. histologically confirmed malignancy, which was diagnosed or treated (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) in the past 6 months, or recurrent, or metastatic, or inoperable. 3. Any clinically relevant bleeding (defined as bleeding requiring hospitalization, transfusion, surgical intervention, invasive procedures, occurring in a critical anatomical site, or causing disability) within 30 days prior to randomization or sign of acute bleeding. 4. Intracerebral bleeding at any time in the past or signs/symptoms consistent with acute intracranial haemorrhage. 5. Haemoglobin <8 g/dL and platelet count <50 x 109 cells/L confirmed by recent laboratory test (<90 days). 6. Subjects with any known coagulopathy or bleeding diathesis, including known significant liver disease associated with coagulopathy. 7. Severe renal insufficiency (baseline creatinine clearance <30 mL/min calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault formula) confirmed by recent laboratory test (<90 days). 8. Contraindications to enoxaparin therapy, including prior heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and known hypersensitivity. 9. Current use of dual antiplatelet therapy. 10. Participation in other interventional studies over the past 30 days. 11. Non-compliance or inability to adhere to treatment or lack of a family environment or support system for home treatment. 12. Cognitive impairment and/or inability to understand information provided in the study information. Patient enrolment will take place at seven Swiss centres, including five university hospitals and two large cantonal hospitals. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomized to the intervention group will receive subcutaneous enoxaparin at the recommended dose of 4,000 IU anti-Xa activity (40 mg/0.4 ml) once daily for 14 days. Patients randomized to the comparator group will receive no anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome: a composite of any hospitalization or all-cause death occurring within 30 days of randomization. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (i) a composite of cardiovascular events, including deep vein thrombosis (including catheter-associated), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction/myocarditis, arterial ischemia including mesenteric and extremities, acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, or ischemic stroke within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of randomization; (ii) each component of the primary efficacy outcome, within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of randomization; (iii) net clinical benefit (accounting for the primary efficacy outcome, composite cardiovascular events, and major bleeding), within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of enrolment; (iv) primary efficacy outcome, within 14 days, and 90 days of enrolment; (v) disseminated intravascular coagulation (ISTH criteria, in-hospital diagnosis) within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of enrolment. RANDOMISATION: Patients will undergo block stratified randomization (by age: 50-70 vs. >70 years; and by study centre) with a randomization ratio of 1:1 with block sizes varying between 4 and 8. Randomization will be performed after the signature of the informed consent for participation and the verification of the eligibility criteria using the electronic data capture software (REDCAP, Vanderbilt University, v9.1.24). BLINDING (MASKING): In this open-label study, no blinding procedures will be used. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The sample size calculation is based on the parameters α = 0.05 (2-sided), power: 1-ß = 0.8, event rate in experimental group, pexp = 0.09 and event rate in control group, pcon = 0.15. The resulting total sample size is 920. To account for potential dropouts, the total sample size was fixed to 1000 with 500 patients in the intervention group and 500 in the control group. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.0, 14 April 2020. Protocol version 3.0, 18 May 2020 Recruiting start date: June 2020. Last Patient Last Visit: March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04400799 First Posted: May 26, 2020 Last Update Posted: July 16, 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19

Background Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes an acute illness termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Humoral immune responses likely play an important role in containing SARS-CoV-2, however, the determinants of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses are unclear. Methods Using immunoassays specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we determined SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin A (IgA) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) in sera and mucosal fluids of two cohorts, including patients with quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 56;median age 61 years) with mild versus severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2-exposed healthcare workers (n = 109;median age 36 years) with or without symptoms and tested negative or positive by RT-qPCR. Findings On average, SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA titers in mild COVID-19 cases became positive eight days after symptom onset and were often transient, whereas serum IgG levels remained negative or reached positive values 9--10 days after symptom onset. Conversely, patients with severe COVID-19 showed a highly significant increase of SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA and IgG titers as a function of duration since symptom onset, independent of patient age and comorbidities. Very high levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific serum IgA correlated with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Interestingly, some of the SARS-CoV-2-exposed healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG serum titers had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA antibodies in their nasal fluids and tears. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA levels in nasal fluids of these healthcare workers were inversely correlated with patient age. Interpretation These data show that systemic IgA and IgG production against SARS-CoV-2 develops mainly in severe COVID-19, with very high IgA levels seen in patients with severe ARDS, whereas mild disease may be associated with transient serum titers of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies but stimulate mucosal SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA secretion. The findings suggest four grades of antibody responses dependent on COVID-19 severity.