Comparison of safety and efficacy between therapeutic or intermediate versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thrombosis in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections often have macrovascular or microvascular thrombosis and inflammation, which are known to be associated with a poor prognosis. Heparin has been hypothesized that administration of heparin with treatment dose rather than prophylactic dose for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Studies comparing therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation with prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients were eligible. Mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding were the primary outcomes. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KMbase were searched up to July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to disease severity. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,678 patients and four cohort studies with 1,080 patients were included in this review. In the RCTs, the therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was associated with significant reductions in the occurrence of thromboembolic events (5 studies, n=4,664; relative risk [RR], 0.72; P=0.01), and a significant increase in bleeding events (5 studies, n=4,667; RR, 1.88; P=0.004). In the moderate patients, therapeutic or intermediate anticoagulation was more beneficial than prophylactic anticoagulation in terms of thromboembolic events, but showed significantly higher bleeding events. In the severe patients, the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in the therapeutic or intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that prophylactic anticoagulant treatment should be used in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection groups. Further studies are needed to determine more individualized anticoagulation guidance for all COVID-19 patients.

Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. METHODS: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. RESULTS: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3-4 months. CONCLUSION: We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media. Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.

False-positive Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay in an emergency room and trauma center: A retrospective chart review study.

OBJECTIVES: To review reports false-positive Xpert results in an emergency room and trauma center. METHODS: Patients' data with false-positive Xpert results from November 2020 to February 2022 at Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea, were extracted from the electronic medical records. RESULTS: The positive predictive value of Xpert was 40%. Of the 12 patients with false-positive results, 5 (41.7%) were re-positives (such as, patients recovered from coronavirus disease-19 [COVID-19]), and 4 (33.3%) had head or facial trauma. Two out of 4 head or facial trauma cases had documented sample contamination with blood. CONCLUSION: We found a high incidence of false-positive Xpert results among patients who recovered from COVID-19 and those with head or facial injury. Careful history taking for COVID-19 and physical examination of the sample collection site is essential before Xpert analysis.

Efficacy and safety of prone position in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups. CONCLUSION: For non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Early intubation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the timing of the application of mechanical ventilation among patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is insufficient. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early intubation compared to late intubation in patients with severe and critical COVID-19. METHODS: For this study, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases as well as one Korean domestic database on July 15, 2021. We updated the search monthly from September 10, 2021 to February 10, 2022. Studies that compared early intubation with late intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated as measures of effect using the random-effects model for the pooled estimates of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), hospital LOS, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the definition of early intubation and the index time. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized studies 2.0. RESULTS: Of the 1523 records identified, 12 cohort studies, involving 2843 patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (8 studies, n = 795; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10, P = 0.32, I2 = 33%), LOS in the ICU (9 studies, n = 978; MD -1.77 days, 95% CI -4.61 to 1.07 days, P = 0.22, I2 = 78%), MV duration (9 studies, n = 1,066; MD -0.03 day, 95% CI -1.79 to 1.72 days, P = 0.97, I2 = 49%), ICU-free days (1 study, n = 32; 0 day vs. 0 day; P = 0.39), and ventilator-free days (4 studies, n = 344; MD 0.94 day, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.43 days, P = 0.74, I2 = 54%) between the early and late intubation groups. However, the early intubation group had significant advantage in terms of hospital LOS (6 studies, n = 738; MD -4.32 days, 95% CI -7.20 to -1.44 days, P = 0.003, I2 = 45%). CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant difference in both primary and secondary outcomes between the early intubation and late intubation groups. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 16 February, 2022 (registration number CRD42022311122).

Clinical Performance of Rapid and Point-of-Care Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are widely used in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by diverse variants. Information on the real-world performance of RATs for variants is urgently needed for decision makers. Systematic searches of the available literature and updates were conducted in PubMed, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, CENTRAL, and KMBASE for articles evaluating the accuracy of instrument-free RATs for variants up until 14 March 2022. A bivariate random effects model was utilized to calculate pooled diagnostic values in comparison with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction as the reference test. A total of 7562 samples from six studies were available for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs for variants were 69.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62.5% to 76.1%) and 100.0% (95% CI = 98.8% to 100.0%), respectively. When an additional 2179 samples from seven studies reporting sensitivities only were assessed, the pooled sensitivity dropped to 50.0% (95% CI = 44.0% to 55.0%). These findings suggest reassessment and monitoring of the diagnostic utility of RATs for variants, especially for the sensitivity aspect, to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.