Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

SARS-CoV-2 coinfection with additional respiratory virus does not predict severe disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) claimed over 4 million lives by July 2021 and continues to pose a serious public health threat. OBJECTIVES: Our retrospective study utilized respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 to determine if coinfection (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 positivity with an additional respiratory virus) was associated with more severe presentation and outcomes. METHODS: All patients with negative influenza/respiratory syncytial virus testing who underwent RPP testing within 7 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test at a large, academic medical centre in New York were examined. Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP were compared with patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and positive for a virus by RPP in terms of biomarkers, oxygen requirements and severe COVID-19 outcome, as defined by mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 306 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with RPP testing, 14 (4.6%) were positive for a non-influenza virus (coinfected). Compared with the coinfected group, patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP had higher inflammatory markers and were significantly more likely to be admitted (P = 0.01). Severe COVID-19 outcome occurred in 111 (36.3%) patients in the SARS-CoV-2-only group and 3 (21.4%) patients in the coinfected group (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 along with a non-influenza respiratory virus had less severe disease on presentation and were more likely to be admitted-but did not have more severe outcomes-than those infected with SARS-CoV-2 alone.

ABO blood type association with SARS-CoV-2 infection mortality: A single-center population in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has a variable clinical course with significant mortality. Early reports suggested higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with type A blood and enrichment of type A individuals among COVID-19 mortalities. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The study includes all patients hospitalized or with an emergency department (ED) visit who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 10, 2020 and June 8, 2020 and had a positive test result by nucleic acid test (NAT) performed on a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. A total of 4968 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with a subsequent 23.1% (n = 1146/4968) all-cause mortality rate in the study cohort. To estimate overall risk by ABO type and account for the competing risks of in-hospital mortality and discharge, we calculated the cumulative incidence function (CIF) for each event. Cause-specific hazard ratios (csHRs) for in-hospital mortality and discharge were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Type A blood was associated with the increased cause-specific hazard of death among COVID-19 patients compared to type O (HR = 1.17, 1.02-1.33, p = .02) and type B (HR = 1.32,1.10-1.58, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ABO histo-blood group type is associated with the risk of in-hospital death in COVID-19 patients, warranting additional inquiry. Elucidating the mechanism behind this association may reveal insights into the susceptibility and/or immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

A Case-Control Study of Prone Positioning in Awake and Nonintubated Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

To determine the association between prone positioning in nonintubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. DESIGN: A nested case-matched control analysis. SETTING: Three hospital sites in Bronx, NY. PATIENTS: Adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 1, 2020. We excluded patients with do-not-intubate orders. Cases were defined by invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. Each case was matched with two controls based on age, gender, admission date, and hospital length of stay greater than index time of matched case via risk-set sampling. The presence of nonintubated proning was identified from provider documentation. INTERVENTION: Nonintubated proning documented prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality for cases or prior to corresponding index time for matched controls. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 600 patients, 41 (6.8%) underwent nonintubated proning. Cases had lower Spo2/Fio2 ratios prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality compared with controls (case median, 97 [interquartile range, 90-290] vs control median, 404 [interquartile range, 296-452]). Although most providers (58.5%) documented immediate improvement in oxygenation status after initiating nonintubated proning, there was no difference in worst Spo2/Fio2 ratios before and after nonintubated proning in both case and control (case median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 3 [interquartile range, -3 to 8] vs control median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 0 [interquartile range, -3 to 50]). In the univariate analysis, patients who underwent nonintubated proning were 2.57 times more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation or experience inhospital mortality (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.17-5.64; p = 0.02). Following adjustment for patient level differences, we found no association between nonintubated proning and invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.34-2.45; p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association with reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality after adjusting for baseline severity of illness and oxygenation status.

Real-world cure rates for hepatitis C virus treatments that include simeprevir and/or sofosbuvir are comparable to clinical trial results.

AIM: To assess the real-world effectiveness and cost of simeprevir (SMV), and/or sofosbuvir (SOF)-based therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. METHODS: The real-world performance of patients treated with SMV/SOF ± ribavirin (RBV), SOF/RBV, and SOF/RBV with pegylated-interferon (PEG) were analyzed in a consecutive series of 508 patients with chronic HCV infection treated at a single academic medical center. Patients with genotypes 1 through 4 were included. Rates of sustained virological response - the absence of a detectable serum HCV RNA 12 wk after the end of treatment [sustained virological response (SVR) 12] - were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Costs were calculated from the payer's perspective using Medicare/Medicaid fees and Redbook Wholesale Acquisition Costs. Patient-related factors associated with SVR12 were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: SVR12 rates were as follows: 86% (95%CI: 80%-91%) among 178 patients on SMV/SOF ± RBV; 62% (95%CI: 55%-68%) among 234 patients on SOF/RBV; and 78% (95%CI: 68%-86%) among 96 patients on SOF/PEG/RBV. Mean costs-per-SVR12 were $174442 (standard deviation: ± $18588) for SMV/SOF ± RBV; $223003 (± $77946) for SOF/RBV; and $126496 (± $31052) for SOF/PEG/RBV. Among patients on SMV/SOF ± RBV, SVR12 was less likely in patients previously treated with a protease inhibitor [odds ratio (OR): 0.20, 95%CI: 0.06-0.56]. Higher bilirubin (OR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.69) reduced the likelihood of SVR12 among patients on SOF/RBV, while FIB-4 score ≥ 3.25 reduced the likelihood of SVR12 (OR: 0.18, 95%CI: 0.05-0.59) among those on SOF/PEG/RBV. CONCLUSION: SVR12 rates for SMV and/or SOF-based regimens in a diverse real-world population are comparable to those in clinical trials. Treatment failure accounts for 27% of costs.

Liver Stiffness Decreases Rapidly in Response to Successful Hepatitis C Treatment and Then Plateaus.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate the impact of a sustained virological response (SVR) to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment on liver stiffness (LS). METHODS: LS, measured by transient elastography (FibroScan), demographic and laboratory data of patients treated with interferon (IFN)-containing or IFN-free regimens who had an SVR24 (undetectable HCV viral load 24 weeks after the end of treatment) were analyzed using two-tailed paired t-tests, Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon Signed-rank tests and linear regression. Two time intervals were investigated: pre-treatment to SVR24 and SVR24 to the end of follow-up. LS scores ≥ 12.5 kPa indicated LS-defined cirrhosis. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The median age of the patients (n = 100) was 60 years [IQR (interquartile range) 54-64); 72% were male; 60% were Caucasian; and 42% had cirrhosis pre-treatment according to the FibroScan measurement. The median LS score dropped from 10.40 kPa (IQR: 7.25-18.60) pre-treatment to 7.60 kPa (IQR: 5.60-12.38) at SVR24, p <0.01. Among the 42 patients with LS-defined cirrhosis pre-treatment, 25 (60%) of patients still had LS scores ≥ 12.5 kPa at SVR24, indicating the persistence of cirrhosis. The median change in LS was similar in patients receiving IFN-containing and IFN-free regimens: -1.95 kPa (IQR: -5.75 --0.38) versus -2.40 kPa (IQR: -7.70 --0.23), p = 0.74. Among 56 patients with a post-SVR24 LS measurement, the LS score changed by an additional -0.90 kPa (IQR: -2.98-0.5) during a median follow-up time of 1.17 (IQR: 0.88-1.63) years, which was not a statistically significant decrease (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: LS decreased from pre-treatment to SVR24, but did not decrease significantly during additional follow-up. Earlier treatment may be needed to reduce the burden of liver disease.

Re-re-treatment of hepatitis C virus: Eight patients who relapsed twice after direct-acting-antiviral drugs.

AIM: To determine risk factors associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment failure after direct acting antivirals in patients with complex treatment histories. METHODS: All HCV mono-infected patients who received treatment at our institution were queried. Analysis was restricted to patients who previously failed treatment with boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) and started simeprevir (SMV) and sofosbuvir (SOF) ± ribavirin (RBV) between December 2013 and June 2014. Patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV co-infection or patients who received a liver transplant in the past were excluded. Viral loads were recorded while on treatment and after treatment. Data collection continued until December, 31(st) 2014 when data analysis was initiated. Patients missing virologic outcomes data were not included in the analysis. Analysis of 35 patients who had virologic outcome data available resulted in eight patients who were viral load negative at the end of treatment with SMF/SOF but later relapsed. Data related to patient demographics, HCV infection, and treatment history was collected in order to identify risk factors shared among patients who failed treatment with SMF/SOF. RESULTS: Eight patients who were treated with the first generation HCV protease inhibitors BOC or TVR in combination with pegylated-interferon (PEG) and RBV who failed this triple therapy were subsequently re-treated with an off-label all-oral regimen of SMV and SOF for 12 wk, with RBV in seven cases. Treatment was initiated before the Food and Drug Administration approved a 24-wk SMV/SOF regimen for patients with liver cirrhosis. All eight patients had an end of treatment response, but later relapsed. Eight (100%) patients were male. Mean age was 56 (range, 49-64). Eight (100%) patients had previously failed PEG/RBV dual therapy at least once in addition to prior failure with triple therapy. Total number of times treated ranged from 3-6 (mean 3.8). Eight (100%) patients were male had liver cirrhosis as determined by Fibroscan or MRI. Seven (87.5%) patients had genotype 1a HCV. Seven (87.5%) patients had over 1 million IU/mL HCV RNA at the time of re-treatment. CONCLUSION: This study identifies factors associated with SMV/SOF treatment failure and provides evidence that twleve weeks of SMV/SOF/RBV is insufficient in cirrhotics with high-titer genotype 1a HCV.