The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread use of anticoagulation (AC) and corticosteroids (CCS) for hospitalized patients, but real-world outcomes may differ from clinical trial findings due to diverse patient populations and treatment variability.

To evaluate the real-world impact of AC and CCS therapies on key clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Multicenter, retrospective observational cohort study conducted across 11 hospitals in a Midwest health system.

The study included 4754 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with AC, CCS, both (AC+CCS), or neither. The 'neither' group served as the reference for comparisons.

Interventions included administration of AC, CCS, both AC+CCS, or no intervention.

Primary outcomes included thromboembolism (TE), bleeding events, ICU admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and in-hospital mortality.

Compared to the reference group, the AC+CCS group had significantly lower odds of TE (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87) and bleeding events (aOR 0.15 95% CI (0.08, 0.27)). The AC-only group demonstrated the lowest ICU admission, IMV, and mortality rates (aHR 0.30 95% CI (0.17, 0.53)). The CCS-only group had the highest rates of adverse outcomes, likely reflecting greater baseline illness severity.

This study emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, showing that real-world outcomes of AC and CCS can differ significantly from controlled trials. These findings provide crucial insights for adapting clinical guidelines to diverse patient settings.

Impaired alveolar fluid clearance (AFC) is an important cause of alveolar edema fluid accumulation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Alveolar edema leads to insufficient gas exchange and worse clinical outcomes. Thus, it is important to understand the pathophysiology of impaired AFC in order to develop new therapies for ARDS. Over the last few decades, multiple experimental studies have been done to understand the molecular, cellular, and physiological mechanisms that regulate AFC in the normal and the injured lung. This review provides a review of AFC in the normal lung, focuses on the mechanisms of impaired AFC, and then outlines the regulation of AFC. Finally, we summarize ongoing challenges and possible future research that may offer promising therapies for ARDS.

COVID-19-related critical and acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These evidence-based recommendations of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about using anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness; patients with COVID-19-related acute illness; and those being discharged from the hospital, who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE.

ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representatives. The Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and MacGRADE Centres at McMaster University supported guideline development, including performing systematic reviews (up to June 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty in the evidence and make recommendations.

This is an executive summary of 3 updated recommendations that have been published, which concludes the living phase of the guidelines. For patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, the panel issued conditional recommendations suggesting (a) prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation and (b) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation. For patients with COVID-19-related acute illness, conditional recommendations were suggested (a) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation, and (b) therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation suggesting against the use of postdischarge anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis.

These conditional recommendations were made based on low or very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials for patients with COVID-19.

Limited knowledge exists about prophylactic anticoagulation patterns in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry data from May 2020 to March 2022. We included patients without preexisting indications for or contraindications to anticoagulation, excluding those with missing anticoagulation data. Patients were categorized by the highest anticoagulation dose received. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between anticoagulation use/dose, patient demographics, clinical presentation, in-hospital course, institutional characteristics, and admission date, accounting for hospital clustering. Among 26 775 patients, 4157 (16%) received no anticoagulation, 15 617 (58%) low-dose, 3071 (11%) intermediate-dose, and 3930 (15%) full-dose anticoagulation. Significant hospital-level variability occurred for any anticoagulation use (range, 0%-98%; P<0.0001) and by dose (full anticoagulation range, 0%-85%; P<0.0001). Controlling for hospital variability, older age, male sex, non-White race, higher body mass index, higher platelets, corticosteroid use, and intensive care unit admission were positively associated with any anticoagulation use. Older age, male sex, higher body mass index, higher platelets, corticosteroid use, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and admission before October 2020 were associated with higher anticoagulation dose (full versus low dose). Rates of no anticoagulation significantly increased in both intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit strata over time (P trend=0.01 and <0.0001, respectively).

In this large real-world analysis, nearly 1 in 6 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 received no prophylactic anticoagulation. Patient and disease characteristics associated with thrombotic risk and COVID-19 severity correlated with anticoagulation strategy. Importantly, substantial institutional differences emerged, highlighting gaps between clinical practice and guideline recommendations.

The INCREASE trial introduced a novel therapeutic option for Pulmonary Hypertension caused by Interstitial Lung Disease. Subsequently to this trial, several subgroup analyses were conducted, aiming to explore specific effects within subgroups.

This study aimed to evaluate the subgroup analyses performed in the INCREASE trial and to identify potentially reliable subgroup effects.

A methodological assessment of the subgroup analyses was performed. Claims of subgroup effect were evaluated using three different tools: Sun, X et al. 2012, Gil-Sierra, M.D et al. 2020, and Schandelmaier, S et al. 2020. Additionally, all statistically significant subgroup effects that were not claimed by the authors were evaluated.

Five claims of subgroup effect were identified; none of them achieved statistical significance when assessed using an interaction test. The evaluation conducted with the three tools consistently yielded very low credibility for all the claims. During the assessment, a statistically significant subgroup effect of moderate credibility was identified, which the authors did not claim: iTre appeared to improve exercise capacity exclusively in patients with Pulmonary Vascular Resistance ⋝ 4 WUs.

Due to methodological limitations, the credibility of subgroup claims from the authors of the INCREASE was lacking and, therefore, should not be relied upon to inform decisions on an individual basis.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic made it critical to understand the immune and inflammatory responses to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It became increasingly recognized that the immune response was a key mediator of illness severity and that its mechanisms needed to be better understood. Early infection of both tissue and immune cells, such as macrophages, leading to pyroptosis-mediated inflammasome production in an organ system critical for systemic oxygenation likely plays a central role in the morbidity wrought by SARS-CoV-2. Delayed transcription of Type I and Type III interferons by SARS-CoV-2 may lead to early disinhibition of viral replication. Cytokines such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), some of which may be produced through mechanisms involving nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), likely contribute to the hyperinflammatory state in patients with severe COVID-19. Lymphopenia, more apparent among natural killer (NK) cells, CD8+ T-cells, and B-cells, can contribute to disease severity and may reflect direct cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 or end-organ sequestration. Direct infection and immune activation of endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 may be a critical mechanism through which end-organ systems are impacted. In this context, endovascular neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation and microthrombi development can be seen in the lungs and other critical organs throughout the body, such as the heart, gut, and brain. The kidney may be among the most impacted extrapulmonary organ by SARS-CoV-2 infection owing to a high concentration of ACE2 and exposure to systemic SARS-CoV-2. In the kidney, acute tubular injury, early myofibroblast activation, and collapsing glomerulopathy in select populations likely account for COVID-19-related AKI and CKD development. The development of COVID-19-associated nephropathy (COVAN), in particular, may be mediated through IL-6 and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) signaling, suggesting a direct connection between the COVID-19-related immune response and the development of chronic disease. Chronic manifestations of COVID-19 also include systemic conditions like Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) and Adults (MIS-A) and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), which may reflect a spectrum of clinical presentations of persistent immune dysregulation. The lessons learned and those undergoing continued study likely have broad implications for understanding viral infections' immunologic and inflammatory consequences beyond coronaviruses.

The risk of thrombosis increases after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study aimed to assess associations between pre-infection anticoagulant exposure and SARS-CoV-2 infection-related outcomes in a population-based cohort.

Members of the "Meuhedet" health maintenance organization aged >45 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (03/2020-04/2022) were followed. Pre-infection anticoagulant exposure (PAE) was defined as any anticoagulant therapy prescribed ≥1 month prior to SARS-CoV-2 testing. Univariate analyses, multivariable models adjusting for confounders, propensity-score matching, and an age-stratified analysis were performed to assess associations between PAE and hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 30-day and one-year mortality.

Of the 127,801 patients included, 2951(2.3 %) had PAE. Comorbidities including ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation were more common among anticoagulant-exposed than unexposed individuals (p < 0.001). Patients with PAE experienced higher hospitalization (22.7 % vs 5.6 %), ICU admissions (1.9 % vs 0.5 %), 30-day and 1-year mortality rates (4.8 % vs. 0.6, and 8.8 % vs. 1.1 %, respectively), than unexposed individuals, but similar lengths-of-stay. In the multivariable analysis, PAE was independently associated only with hospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.29 [95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.47]), whereas in the propensity-matched analysis, none of the outcomes differed significantly between the groups. However, in the stratum aged >75 years, 30-day and one-year mortality were significantly reduced in those with PAE (aOR = 0.68 [CI:0.48-0.97], and aOR = 0.73 [CI:0.55-0.97], respectively).

SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with prior exposure to anticoagulants have more comorbidities and experienced a higher incidence of hospitalization but not mortality compared to unexposed patients. Paradoxically, mortality risks decreased in the oldest stratum of anticoagulant-exposed individuals. Further research is required to assess mechanisms for this apparent protective effect.

Abnormal coagulation and thrombotic complications prompted many guidelines to recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but the dose required for prophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review (SR) analyses the safety and efficacy of therapeutic dose anticoagulation (TDA) versus non-therapeutic dose anticoagulation (NDA) in COVID-19 patients.

According to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions, we performed an SR. The protocol is registered in Prospero (CRD42021269197, date 12 August 2021).

In this SR of 18 studies, TDA was shown to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70, 0.99) in COVID-19 infection. TDA also reduced thrombosis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.72) but increased major bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.29, 2.69). A stratified analysis according to severity revealed that, in non-critical patients, TDA resulted in mortality benefit (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67, 0.94). In critical patients, TDA did not affect all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89, 1.18) but reduced thrombosis (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.86) and increased major bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.06, 3.23).

TDA significantly reduced all-cause mortality and thrombosis in non-critical COVID-19 patients at the expense of increased major bleeding. In critical COVID-19, this mortality benefit was not observed.

Uncertainty surrounds the risk-benefit of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent postpartum venous thromboembolism (VTE). Data from randomised clinical trials (RCT) are critically needed, but recent feasibility studies in North America yielded low participation rates, with <1 enrolment per month per centre. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a trial of postpartum short-term enoxaparin in Europe.

Pragmatic, open-label pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Swiss tertiary hospital.

Postpartum women, within 48 h of delivery, deemed at intermediate risk of VTE with at least one major risk factor (morbid obesity, thrombophilia, emergency caesarean section, pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction or systemic peripartum infection) and/or at least two minor risk factors.

Participants were randomised to enoxaparin 40-60 mg once daily for 10 days or no treatment, with a 90-day follow-up.

Participation rate and study acceptance (randomised participants among women in whom informed consent was sought).

Recruitment was open for 25 weeks in 2022. Among 1504 postpartum women, 480 were eligible and 77 were randomised. The recruitment rate was 3.1 per week (13.3 per month) and the study acceptance was 23.8%. At 3 months, there was no VTE event, but one major, one nonmajor obstetrical bleeding and one surgical site complication, all in the enoxaparin group.

This pilot RCT of postpartum thromboprophylaxis set in Switzerland yielded greater participation rate and acceptance than previous attempts in North America. It calls for a large, international, collaborative trial to guide this important clinical decision.

ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT05878899 and NCT04153760.

Reported results of clinical trials assessing higher-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have been inconsistent.

To estimate the association of higher- versus lower-dose anticoagulation with clinical outcomes.

Randomized trials were identified from the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restriction by trial status or language.

Eligible randomized trials assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to higher- versus lower-dose anticoagulation.

20 eligible trials provided data in a prospectively agreed format. Two further studies were included based on published data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 28 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding.

Therapeutic- compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation with heparins reduced 28-day mortality (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.93]; I 2 = 29%; 11 trials, 6297 patients, of whom 5456 required low or no oxygen at randomization). The ORs for 28-day mortality were 1.21 (CI, 0.93 to 1.58; I 2 = 0%) for therapeutic-dose compared with intermediate-dose anticoagulation (6 trials, 1803 patients, 843 receiving noninvasive ventilation at randomization) and 0.95 (CI, 0.76 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 10 trials, 3897 patients, 2935 receiving no or low oxygen at randomization) for intermediate- versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. Treatment effects appeared broadly consistent across predefined patient subgroups, although some analyses were limited in power. Higher- compared with lower-dose anticoagulation was associated with fewer thromboembolic events, but a greater risk for major bleeding.

Therapeutic-dose compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation reduced 28-day mortality. Mortality was similar for intermediate-dose compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation and higher for therapeutic-dose compared with intermediate-dose anticoagulation, although this comparison was not estimated precisely.

No direct funding. (PROSPERO: CRD42020213461).

A heightened risk for thrombosis is a hallmark of COVID-19. Expansive clinical experience and medical literature have characterized small (micro) and large (macro) vessel involvement of the venous and arterial circulatory systems. Most events occur in patients with serious or critical illness in the hyperacute (first 1-2 weeks) or acute phases (2-4 weeks) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, thrombosis involving the venous, arterial, and microcirculatory systems has been reported in the subacute (4-8 weeks), convalescent (> 8-12 weeks) and chronic phases (> 12 weeks) among patients with mild-to-moderate illness. The purpose of the current focused review is to highlight the distinguishing clinical features, pathological components, and potential mechanisms of venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. The overarching objective is to better understand the proclivity for thrombosis, laying a solid foundation for screening and surveillance modalities, preventive strategies, and optimal patient management.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been associated with systemic inflammation and vascular injury, which contribute to the development of acute respiratory syndrome (ARDS) and the mortality of COVID-19 infection. Moreover, multiorgan complications due to persistent endothelial dysfunction have been suspected as the cause of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, elucidation of the vascular inflammatory effect of SARS-CoV-2 will increase our understanding of how endothelial cells (ECs) contribute to the short- and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we investigated the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with human ECs from aortic (HAoEC) and pulmonary microvascular (HPMC) origins, cultured under physiological flow conditions. We showed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein triggers prolonged expression of cell adhesion markers in both ECs, similar to the effect of TNF-α. SARS-CoV-2 spike treatment also led to the release of various cytokines and chemokines observed in severe COVID-19 patients. Moreover, increased binding of leucocytes to the endothelial surface and a procoagulant state of the endothelium were observed. Transcriptomic profiles of SARS-CoV-2 spike-activated HPMC and HAoEC showed prolonged upregulation of genes and pathways associated with responses to virus, cytokine-mediated signaling, pattern recognition, as well as complement and coagulation pathways. Our findings support experimental and clinical observations of the vascular consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and highlight the importance of EC protection as one of the strategies to mitigate the severe effects as well as the possible post-acute complications of COVID-19 disease.

One of the main characteristics of COVID-19 is the high incidence of venous thromboembolism, particularly pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation therapy is the primary treatment for pulmonary embolism. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an antibody-mediated adverse reaction to heparin that occurs during its use of heparin drugs. The main clinical manifestation is a decrease in platelet count, which can lead to the formation of arterial and venous thrombosis and, in severe cases, even death. Herein, we present a case of HIT that occurred during anticoagulation therapy for COVID-19, complicated by pulmonary embolism.

An 86-year-old man with COVID-19 experienced a significant decrease in platelet count and progression of venous thrombosis in the lower extremities during anticoagulation therapy with nadroparin.

The 4T score was 6; therefore, HIT was considered.

All heparin-based drugs were discontinued, and argatroban was administered as anticoagulation therapy. The patient's platelet count was monitored, and it gradually returned to normal.

Clinicians should remain vigilant to venous thromboembolism for COVID-19 patients even after recovery. During anticoagulant therapy, if thrombocytopenia occurs, HIT should be considered due to its high mortality rate. The 4T scoring system was used for the initial assessment. HIT antibodies can be detected, if necessary, to assist in diagnosis and reduce the occurrence of severe HIT. In the future, by detecting certain biomarkers, we can screen out patients with HIT who are more prone to thrombotic events, thereby minimizing the risk of bleeding caused by anticoagulation.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary.

The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline.

A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary.

In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

This study aimed to investigate the incidence and predictors of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as the inpatient outcomes associated with this complication.

This was an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database from January to December 2020. Adult COVID-19 patients were categorized into two groups based on NVUGIB development during hospitalization. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify predictors and outcomes associated with NVUGIB in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US, after adjusting for age, sex, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, using Stata/BE 17.0.

Among 1 050 045 hospitalized patients, 1.87% developed NVUGIB. Asian Americans had the highest risk, followed by Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans, with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.70, 1.59, 1.40, and 1.14, respectively. Patients with higher CCI scores were also at greater risk (with ORs of 1.47, 2.09, and 3.45 for CCI scores of 1, 2, and 3, respectively). COVID-19 patients with NVUGIB had a higher risk of inpatient mortality (OR=3.84), acute kidney injury (OR=3.12), hypovolemic shock (OR=13.7), blood transfusion (OR=7.02), and in-hospital cardiac arrest (OR=4.02).

NVUGIB occurred in 1.87% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and was associated with a threefold increase in mortality. Further research is necessary to identify strategies for reducing its incidence in COVID-19 patients with multiple risk factors.

Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design.

Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded.

The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS.

Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

While the association between coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and neutrophils extracellular traps (NETs) is recognized, uncertainties remain regarding its precise onset, timing of resolution and target therapy. To assess changes in inflammatory and NET markers during the first week of COVID-19 hospitalization, and the association with disease severity. "In vitro" experiments investigated the effect of antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and cyclic nucleotide stimulators on NETs release. Prospective cohort study, changes in interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-17, TNF-α, RANTES, PF4, and citrullinated-H3 (citH3) levels within each outcome group was evaluated using ANOVA. Differences between moderately ill, critically ill, and non-survivors were determined using Kruskal-Wallis and logistic regression. Healthy neutrophils were stimulated with phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) or COVID-19 sera and treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), aspirin (ASA), ticagrelor, cinaciguat, sildenafil, and milrinone. The proportion of NETosis was assessed using IncuCyte Cell Imager. Of the 125 patients, 40.8% had moderate COVID-19, 40.8% had critical COVID-19 but recovered, and 18.4% died. From admission to hospitalization day 8, IL-6 levels decreased in moderately and critically ill, but not in non-survivors, while citH3 levels increased in critically ill and non-survivors. IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α levels were associated with critical and fatal COVID-19. The release of NETs by neutrophils stimulated with PMA or COVID-19 sera was decreased in the presence of ASA, UFH, LMWH and cyclic nucleotide stimulators in a dose-dependent manner. In the first week of hospitalization, NET markers rose later than inflammatory markers in severe COVID-19 cases. Cyclic nucleotide stimulators, ASA and heparin may emerge as treatment approaches as they may modulate NETosis.

COVID-19 pandemics increases venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk during hospitalization, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. Limited radiological diagnosis in pandemic requires a guided protocol for anticoagulant adjustment.

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center as part of a quality improvement program evaluating the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation protocols. The study focused on implementing a guideline for anticoagulant dosing protocol based on dynamic changes in D-dimer levels in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The dosing guideline allowed for dose escalation from standard prophylactic levels to escalated prophylactic or therapeutic levels, depending on the patient's risk profile for VTE. The primary endpoints included in-hospital survival comparing between fix and dynamic adjustment treatment groups. Secondary endpoints encompassed major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) events, incidence of breakthrough thrombosis, length of hospitalization and ICU stay, days of mechanical ventilator use, and survival duration.

Among the 260 COVID-19-infected patients hospitalized between March 15th and June 15th, 2020. The patients received fixed anticoagulant dosage in 188, 72.3%) patients, while 72 (27.7%) were up-titrated according to the protocol. In-hospital survival at 30 days demonstrated superiority among patients whose anticoagulation was up-titrated to either escalated prophylactic or therapeutic (80.2%) compared to receiving fixed anticoagulant dosage (51.3%) (p=0.01). Bleeding events were significantly higher in up-titrate group (12.5%) compared to fixed anticoagulant dosage group (2.13%). Most of them are CRNMB.

A dynamic, D-dimer-based dose escalation of anticoagulation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 holds promise in improving in-hospital mortality rates without a significant increase in fatal bleeding events.

Pulmonary intravascular thrombus formation has been widely observed in patients with respiratory failure, for example, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy/safety of alteplase thrombolysis in COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomized to receive alteplase (low- or high-dose) over 5 days plus standard of care (SOC), or SOC alone. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement (≥ 2-point decrease on WHO Clinical Progression Scale, or hospital discharge) up to Day 28. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at Day 28, treatment failure at Day 28 and change in arterial oxygen partial pressure/fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio at Day 6 versus baseline.

Sixty-nine patients were randomized to alteplase (low- or high-dose) and 35 to SOC; 65% were on high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation at baseline. Median time to clinical improvement was 25 days in the alteplase group and > 28 days (median not reached) in the SOC group. All-cause mortality was 8/69 (12%) versus 10/35 (29%) in the alteplase versus SOC groups, respectively (unadjusted risk difference [RD], - 17% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 34 to 0], p = 0.047; adjusted RD, - 16% [95% CI - 31 to 1], p = 0.058). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean [standard deviation]) increased by + 30 (84) mmHg in the alteplase group and decreased by - 12 (59) mmHg in the SOC group (adjusted mean difference vs. SOC, p = 0.052). Differences were greater in patients receiving high-dose alteplase, and in those not receiving invasive ventilation. Eighteen patients (26.1%) in the alteplase group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Major bleeding was more frequent with alteplase than with SOC (9 vs. 0 patients); no bleeding was fatal. The study closed early due to insufficient patient recruitment.

Alteplase was not associated with faster clinical recovery from COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. A numerical difference in survival and PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed, particularly in patients not receiving invasive ventilation. These exploratory findings merit further investigation in larger patient cohorts that are adequately powered to confirm the hypotheses generated in this study regarding the impact of alteplase on treatment outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04640194 (November 23, 2020); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04640194 (early discontinuation due to insufficient patient recruitment).

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 can clinically deteriorate after a period of initial stability, making optimal timing of discharge a clinical and operational challenge.

To determine risks for post-discharge readmission and death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, 2020-2021, with 30-day follow-up.

Adults admitted for care of COVID-19 respiratory disease between March 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, to one of 180 US hospitals affiliated with the HCA Healthcare system.

Readmission to or death at an HCA hospital within 30 days of discharge was assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated using an internal validation set (33% of the HCA cohort), and external validation was performed using similar data from six academic centers associated with a hospital medicine research network (HOMERuN).

The final HCA cohort included 62,195 patients (mean age 61.9 years, 51.9% male), of whom 4704 (7.6%) were readmitted or died within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors for death or readmission included fever within 72 h of discharge; tachypnea, tachycardia, or lack of improvement in oxygen requirement in the last 24 h; lymphopenia or thrombocytopenia at the time of discharge; being ≤ 7 days since first positive test for SARS-CoV-2; HOSPITAL readmission risk score ≥ 5; and several comorbidities. Inpatient treatment with remdesivir or anticoagulation were associated with lower odds. The model's AUC for the internal validation set was 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) for the external validation set.

This large retrospective study identified several factors associated with post-discharge readmission or death in models which performed with good discrimination. Patients 7 or fewer days since test positivity and who demonstrate potentially reversible risk factors may benefit from delaying discharge until those risk factors resolve.

Inpatient and extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis of COVID-19 patients remains suboptimal despite antithrombotic guidelines.

To determine whether a novel electronic health record-agnostic clinical decision support (CDS) tool incorporating the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism plus D-dimer (IMPROVE-DD) venous thromboembolism (VTE) scores increases appropriate inpatient and extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis and improves outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients.

This post hoc analysis of the IMPROVE-DD cluster randomized trial evaluated thromboprophylaxis CDS among COVID-19 inpatients at 4 New York hospitals between December 21, 2020, and January 21, 2022. Hospitals were randomized 1:1 to CDS (intervention, n = 2) vs no CDS (usual care, n = 2). The primary outcome was rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included rates of major thromboembolism, all-cause and VTE-related readmissions and death, major bleeding (MB), and all-cause mortality 30 days after discharge.

Two thousand four hundred fifty-two COVID-19 inpatients were analyzed (CDS, 1355; no CDS, 1097). Mean age was 73.7 ± 9.37 years; 50.1% of participants were male. CDS adoption was 96.8% (intervention group). CDS was associated with increased appropriate at-discharge extended thromboprophylaxis (42.6% vs 28.8%; odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.39-2.41; P < .001). CDS was associated with reduced VTE (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.75; P < .001), arterial thromboembolism (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.81; P = .01), total thromboembolism (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.69; P < .001), and 30-day all-cause readmission/death (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04). There were no differences in MB, VTE-related readmissions/death, or all-cause mortality.

Electronic health record-agnostic CDS incorporating IMPROVE-DD VTE scores had high adoption, was associated with increased appropriate at-discharge extended thromboprophylaxis, and reduced thromboembolism and all-cause readmission/death without increasing MB in COVID-19 inpatients.

In March 2020, the White House Coronavirus Task Force determined that clinicians in the United States needed expert treatment guidelines to optimally manage patients with COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease caused by a new pathogen for which no specific treatments were known to be effective.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) take the lead in expeditiously convening a panel of experts to create "living" guidelines that would be widely accessible and capable of frequent updating as important new information became available.

The purpose of this article is to expand on the experiences of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) over the past 4 years, summarize the Panel's final recommendations for COVID-19, highlight some challenges and unanswered questions about COVID-19 management, and inform future responses to public health emergencies. The Panel was formed in March 2020, and the first iteration of the guidelines was released in April 2020. Now that the public health emergency has ended, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines have sunsetted. This role will now fall to professional societies and organizations, such as the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the World Health Organization, all of which have been active in this area.

AbstractIn response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute launched five multisite clinical trials testing candidate host tissue-directed medical interventions to hasten recovery, improve function, and reduce morbidity and mortality. Speed, flexibility, and collaboration were essential. This article from the Steering and Executive committees describes the Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating Covid-19 and Therapeutic Strategies (CONNECTS) research program that enrolled 6690 participants and evaluated 18 intervention strategies using 10 molecular agents across the care continuum (outpatient, inpatient, and post discharge), and reports lessons learned from this initiative. Successes include rapid trial execution through collaboration and adaptive platform designs. Challenges that impeded efficiency included time required to execute subcontracts, constraints on clinical research workforce, and limited research infrastructure in nonacademic settings.

Blood coagulation dysfunction is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in severe cases. The evidence for the effects of anticoagulation therapy on prognosis of COVID-19 patients and its risk of causing bleeding events is accumulating. Here we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients of different severity.

We searched PubMed, Embase databases, Cochrane Trials, OVID MEDLINE from December 2019 to April 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients over 18 years of age, which explored the effect of anticoagulant and its dose on outcomes including all-cause mortality, bleeding events or thrombotic events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We also performed subgroup analyses to assess the impact of disease severity, using a fixed-effect model to test for heterogeneity. The risk of bias, publication bias, and the quality of evidence were also evaluated.

A total of 20 RCTs were included for final analysis. When compared with standard care, anticoagulation treatment reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29-0.76) and thrombotic events (RR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) in the whole population with COVID-19 (n=2,365), without increase in bleeding events (total: RR 1.47, 95% CI: 0.54-4.00). Most of the studies only enrolled non-severe patients (n=2,329), while the number of severe patients (n=36) was scarce. In RCTs compared therapeutical and prophylactic doses of anticoagulants, no significant difference in on all-cause mortality was found in the whole population and non-severe and severe subgroups (total: RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92-1.10; non-severe: RR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81-1.32; severe: RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.11). Therapeutical dose reduced risk of thrombotic events (total: RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.73; subtotal of non-severe: RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84; Subtotal of severe: RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.78), while risk of bleeding was increased (total: RR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.47-2.66; non-severe: RR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.56-3.62; severe: RR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.07-2.47). Study heterogeneity was found only in the analysis of effects of anticoagulants on risk of thrombotic events.

Anticoagulant therapy reduces all-cause mortality and risk of thrombosis in non-severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic dose of anticoagulant therapy can be considered in both non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients to reduce thrombosis, but may be associated with increased bleeding events.

The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Cross-Trial Statistics Group gathered lessons learned from statisticians responsible for the design and analysis of the 11 ACTIV therapeutic master protocols to inform contemporary trial design as well as preparation for a future pandemic. The ACTIV master protocols were designed to rapidly assess what treatments might save lives, keep people out of the hospital, and help them feel better faster. Study teams initially worked without knowledge of the natural history of disease and thus without key information for design decisions. Moreover, the science of platform trial design was in its infancy. Here, we discuss the statistical design choices made and the adaptations forced by the changing pandemic context. Lessons around critical aspects of trial design are summarized, and recommendations are made for the organization of master protocols in the future.

Understanding the pathobiology of critical illness is essential for patients' prognosis. Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. As part of the host response, procoagulant responses, one of the most primitive reactions in biology, start at the very beginning of diseases and can be monitored throughout the process. Currently, we can achieve near-complete monitoring of the coagulation process, and procoagulant responses serve as indicators of the severity of host response in critically ill patients. However, the rapid interpretation of the complex results of various biomarkers remains a challenge for many clinicians. The indicators commonly used for coagulation assessment are complex, typically divided into three categories for clarity: process index, functional index, and outcome index. Monitoring and understanding these indicators can help manage procoagulant responses. The intervention of procoagulant response should be part of the bundle therapy, alongside the treatment for primary disease, management for hemodynamics, and controlling for host response. Early intervention for procoagulant response mainly includes anti-inflammation, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, as well as management of primary disease. In this review, we systemically introduce the onset, assessment and intervention of procoagulant response.

Long COVID, a type of post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (PASC) defined by medically unexplained symptoms following infection with SARS-CoV-2, is a newly recognized infection-associated chronic condition that causes disability in some people. Substantial progress has been made in defining its epidemiology, biology, and pathophysiology. However, there is no cure for the tens of millions of people believed to be experiencing long COVID, and industry engagement in developing therapeutics has been limited. Here, we review the current state of knowledge regarding the biology and pathophysiology of long COVID, focusing on how the proposed mechanisms explain the physiology of the syndrome and how they provide a rationale for the implementation of a broad experimental medicine and clinical trials agenda. Progress toward preventing and curing long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions will require deep and sustained investment by funders and industry.

Patients hospitalised for COVID-19 are at risk for multiorgan failure and death. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors provide cardiovascular and kidney protection in patients with cardiometabolic conditions and could provide organ protection during COVID-19. We aimed to investigate whether SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce the need for organ support in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

This pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, platform trial was conducted across 63 sites in the USA, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Mexico. Patients aged at least 18 years hospitalised for COVID-19 (moderate or severe illness) were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice system or web-response system, to receive locally available SGLT2 inhibitor (administered orally, once daily) plus standard-of-care or standard-of-care for 30 days. The primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated through 21 days, assessed using intention-to-treat approach. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04505774.

The first patient was randomly assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor domain on Dec 3, 2021. On March 31, 2023, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, enrolment in the SGLT2 inhibitor domain for both moderately and severely ill hospitalised patients was stopped prematurely for futility due to a low likelihood of finding a treatment benefit. The final randomised population consisted of 575 patients (mean age 72 years [SD 13], 242 (42%) female and 154 (27%) Hispanic; 504 in the moderate illness group and 71 in the severe illness group). 573 patients had a known 21-day outcome; 215 (75%) of 285 patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group did not require respiratory or cardiovascular organ support versus 231 (80%) of 288 patients in the standard-of-care group. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for an SGLT2 inhibitor effect on organ support-free days was 0·74 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0·48-1·13; where OR higher than 1 indicated treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility P(OR <1·2) of 99% and a posterior probability of inferiority P(OR<1·0) of 91%). There were 37 deaths (13%) in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group and 42 deaths (15%) in the standard-of-care group at 90 days (hazard ratio 0·91 [95% CrI 0·58-1·43], probability of hazard ratio <1 of 66%). No safety concerns were observed with SGLT2 inhibitors, including no cases of ketoacidosis.

SGLT2 inhibitors did not significantly increase days free of organ support or reduce mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. SGLT2 inhibitors were well tolerated with no observed safety concerns. Overall, these findings do not support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

National Institutes of Health.

Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are at high risk of death and prolonged time on the ventilator. Interventions often aim to reduce both mortality and time on the ventilator. Many methods have been proposed for analyzing these endpoints as a single composite outcome (days alive and free of ventilation), but it is unclear which analytical method provides the best performance. Thus, we aimed to determine the analysis method with the highest statistical power for use in clinical trials.

Using statistical simulation, we compared multiple methods for analyzing days alive and free of ventilation: the t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Kryger Jensen and Lange tests, as well as the proportional odds, hurdle-Poisson, and competing risk models. We compared 14 scenarios relating to: 1) varying baseline distributions of mortality and duration of ventilation, which were based on data from a registry of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and 2) the varying effects of treatment on mortality and duration of ventilation.

All methods have good control of type 1 error rates (i.e., avoid false positive findings). When data are simulated using a proportional odds model, the t test and ordinal models have the highest relative power (92% and 90%, respectively), followed by competing risk models. When the data are simulated using survival models, the competing risk models have the highest power (100% and 92%), followed by the t test and a ten-category ordinal model. All models struggled to detect the effect of the intervention when the treatment only affected one of mortality and duration of ventilation. Overall, the best performing analytical strategy depends on the respective effects of treatment on survival and duration of ventilation and the underlying distribution of the outcomes. The evaluated models each provide a different interpretation for the treatment effect, which must be considered alongside the statistical power when selecting analysis models.