Pandemics, intellectual property and 'our economy': A worldview analysis of Canada's role in compromising global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric, Canada compromised COVID-19 vaccine equity with policies impeding a proposed global waiver of vaccine intellectual property (IP) rules. To learn from Canada's vaccine nationalism we explore the worldview - a coherent textual picture of the world - in a sample of Government of Canada communications regarding global COVID-19 vaccine sharing. Analysed documents portray risks and disparities as unrelated to the dynamics and power relations of the Canadian and international economies. Against this depoliticised backdrop, economic growth fueled by strict IP rules and free trade is advanced as the solution to inequities. Global vaccine access and distribution are pursued via a charity-focused public-private-partnership approach, with proposals to relax international IP rules dismissed as unhelpful. Rather than a puzzling lapse by a good faith 'middle power', Canada's obstruction of global COVID-19 vaccine equity is a logical and deliberate extension of dominant neoliberal economic policy models. Health sector challenges to such models must prioritise equity in global pandemic governance via politically assertive and less conciliatory stances towards national governments and multilateral organisations. Mobilisation for health equity should transform the overall health-damaging macroeconomic model, complementing efforts based on specific individual health determinants or medical technologies.

COVID-19 Immunologic Antiviral Therapy With Omalizumab (CIAO)-a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Background: Omalizumab is an anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody used to treat moderate to severe chronic idiopathic urticaria, asthma, and nasal polyps. Recent research suggested that omalizumab may enhance the innate antiviral response and have anti-inflammatory properties. Objective: We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in adults hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Methods: This was a phase II randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing omalizumab with placebo (in addition to standard of care) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the composite of mechanical ventilation and/or death at day 14. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at day 28, time to clinical improvement, and duration of hospitalization. Results: Of 41 patients recruited, 40 were randomized (20 received the study drug and 20 placebo). The median age of the patients was 74 years and 55.0% were male. Omalizumab was associated with a 92.6% posterior probability of a reduction in mechanical ventilation and death on day 14 with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.11 (95% credible interval 0.002-2.05). Omalizumab was also associated with a 75.9% posterior probability of reduced all-cause mortality on day 28 with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 (95% credible interval, 0.06-3.90). No statistically significant differences were found for the time to clinical improvement and duration of hospitalization. Numerically fewer adverse events were reported in the omalizumab group and there were no drug-related serious adverse events. Conclusions: These results suggest that omalizumab could prove protective against death and mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This study could also support the development of a phase III trial program investigating the antiviral and anti-inflammatory effect of omalizumab for severe respiratory viral illnesses requiring hospital admission. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04720612.

Using a targeted metabolomics approach to explore differences in ARDS associated with COVID-19 compared to ARDS caused by H1N1 influenza and bacterial pneumonia.

RATIONALE: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening critical care syndrome commonly associated with infections such as COVID-19, influenza, and bacterial pneumonia. Ongoing research aims to improve our understanding of ARDS, including its molecular mechanisms, individualized treatment options, and potential interventions to reduce inflammation and promote lung repair. OBJECTIVE: To map and compare metabolic phenotypes of different infectious causes of ARDS to better understand the metabolic pathways involved in the underlying pathogenesis. METHODS: We analyzed metabolic phenotypes of 3 ARDS cohorts caused by COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and bacterial pneumonia compared to non-ARDS COVID-19-infected patients and ICU-ventilated controls. Targeted metabolomics was performed on plasma samples from a total of 150 patients using quantitative LC-MS/MS and DI-MS/MS analytical platforms. RESULTS: Distinct metabolic phenotypes were detected between different infectious causes of ARDS. There were metabolomics differences between ARDSs associated with COVID-19 and H1N1, which include metabolic pathways involving taurine and hypotaurine, pyruvate, TCA cycle metabolites, lysine, and glycerophospholipids. ARDSs associated with bacterial pneumonia and COVID-19 differed in the metabolism of D-glutamine and D-glutamate, arginine, proline, histidine, and pyruvate. The metabolic profile of COVID-19 ARDS (C19/A) patients admitted to the ICU differed from COVID-19 pneumonia (C19/P) patients who were not admitted to the ICU in metabolisms of phenylalanine, tryptophan, lysine, and tyrosine. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences between C19/A, H1N1/A, and PNA/A vs ICU-ventilated controls, reflecting potentially different disease mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Different metabolic phenotypes characterize ARDS associated with different viral and bacterial infections.

Management of Heat-Related Illness and Injury in the ICU: A Concise Definitive Review.

OBJECTIVES: The increasing frequency of extreme heat events has led to a growing number of heat-related injuries and illnesses in ICUs. The objective of this review was to summarize and critically appraise evidence for the management of heat-related illnesses and injuries for critical care multiprofessionals. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception through August 2023 for studies reporting on heat-related injury and illness in the setting of the ICU. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies were prioritized for review. Bibliographies from retrieved articles were scanned for articles that may have been missed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding study methodology, patient population, management strategy, and clinical outcomes were qualitatively assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Several risk factors and prognostic indicators for patients diagnosed with heat-related illness and injury have been identified and reported in the literature. Effective management of these patients has included various cooling methods and fluid replenishment. Drug therapy is not effective. Multiple organ dysfunction, neurologic injury, and disseminated intravascular coagulation are common complications of heat stroke and must be managed accordingly. Burn injury from contact with hot surfaces or pavement can occur, requiring careful evaluation and possible excision and grafting in severe cases. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of heat-related illness and injury is increasing, and rapid initiation of appropriate therapies is necessary to optimize outcomes. Additional research is needed to identify effective methods and strategies to achieve rapid cooling, the role of immunomodulators and anticoagulant medications, the use of biomarkers to identify organ failure, and the role of artificial intelligence and precision medicine.

Association of delayed adequate antimicrobial treatment and organ dysfunction in pediatric bloodstream infections.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, including multiple organ dysfunction. We explored if delayed adequate antimicrobial treatment for children with BSIs is associated with change in organ dysfunction as measured by PELOD-2 scores. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of critically ill children <18 years old with BSIs. The primary outcome was change in PELOD-2 score between days 1 (index blood culture) and 5. The exposure variable was delayed administration of adequate antimicrobial therapy by ≥3 h from blood culture collection. We compared PELOD-2 score changes between those who received early and delayed treatment. RESULTS: Among 202 children, the median (interquartile range) time to adequate antimicrobial therapy was 7 (0.8-20.1) hours; 124 (61%) received delayed antimicrobial therapy. Patients who received early and delayed treatment had similar baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference in PELOD-2 score changes from days 1 and 5 between groups (PELOD-2 score difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.79, p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between delayed adequate antimicrobial therapy and PELOD-2 score changes between days 1 and 5 from detection of BSI. PELOD-2 score was not sensitive for clinical effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment. IMPACT: In critically ill children with bloodstream infections, there was no significant change in organ dysfunction as measured by PELOD-2 scores between patients who received adequate antimicrobial therapy within 3 h of their initial positive blood culture and those who started after 3 h. Higher PELOD-2 scores on day 1 were associated with larger differences in PELOD-2 scores between days 1 and 5 from index positive blood cultures. Further study is required to determine if PELOD-2 or alternative measures of organ dysfunction could be used as primary outcome measures in trials of antimicrobial interventions in pediatric critical care research.

Proteomic Evolution from Acute to Post-COVID-19 Conditions.

Many COVID-19 survivors have post-COVID-19 conditions, and females are at a higher risk. We sought to determine (1) how protein levels change from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, (2) whether females have a plasma protein signature different from that of males, and (3) which biological pathways are associated with COVID-19 when compared to restrictive lung disease. We measured protein levels in 74 patients on the day of admission and at 3 and 6 months after diagnosis. We determined protein concentrations by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) using a panel of 269 heavy-labeled peptides. The predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were measured by routine pulmonary function testing. Proteins associated with six key lipid-related pathways increased from admission to 3 and 6 months; conversely, proteins related to innate immune responses and vasoconstriction-related proteins decreased. Multiple biological functions were regulated differentially between females and males. Concentrations of eight proteins were associated with FVC, %, and they together had c-statistics of 0.751 (CI:0.732-0.779); similarly, concentrations of five proteins had c-statistics of 0.707 (CI:0.676-0.737) for DLCO, %. Lipid biology may drive evolution from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, while activation of innate immunity and vascular regulation pathways decreased over that period. (ProteomeXchange identifiers: PXD041762, PXD029437).

Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units.

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Outcomes and characteristics of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec during the Omicron wave.

BACKGROUND: Omicron is the current predominant variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesized that vaccination alters outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave and that these patients have different characteristics and outcomes than in previous waves. METHODS: This is a substudy of the Host Response Mediators in Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection (ARBs CORONA I) trial, which included adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to July 2022 from 9 hospitals in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We excluded emergency department visits without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. Using adjusted regression analysis, we compared mortality and organ dysfunction between vaccinated (≥ 2 doses) and unvaccinated patients during the Omicron wave, as well as between all patients in the Omicron and first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: During the Omicron wave, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in vaccinated (n = 19/237) than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (n = 12/127) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.89); vaccinated patients had lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome and shorter hospital length of stay. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more comorbidities than in previous waves, and lower 28-day mortality than in waves 1 and 2 (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.59; and 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.65) but not wave 3 (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43-1.51) and had less organ dysfunction than in the first 2 waves. INTERPRETATION: Patients who were at least double vaccinated had lower mortality than unvaccinated patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more chronic disease and lower mortality than in the first 2 waves, but not wave 3. Changes in vaccination, treatments and predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant may have decreased mortality in patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave.

WHO O2CoV2: oxygen requirements and respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 in low-and-middle income countries-protocol for a multicountry, prospective, observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of the disease officially named COVID-19, primarily a respiratory illness. COVID-19 was characterised as a pandemic on 11 March 2020. It has been estimated that approximately 20% of people with COVID-19 require oxygen therapy. Oxygen has been listed on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines List and Essential Medicines List for Children for almost two decades. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, more than ever, the acute need for scale-up of oxygen therapy. Detailed data on the use of oxygen therapy in low-and-middle income countries at the patient and facility level are needed to target interventions better globally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to describe the requirements and use of oxygen at the facility and patient level of approximately 4500 patients with COVID-19 in 30 countries. Our objectives are specifically to characterise type and duration of different modalities of oxygen therapy delivered to patients; describe demographics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19; and describe facility-level oxygen production and support. Primary analyses will be descriptive in nature. Respiratory support transitions will be described in Sankey plots, and Kaplan-Meier models will be used to estimate probability of each transition. A multistate model will be used to study the course of hospital stay of the study population, evaluating transitions of escalating respiratory support transitions to the absorbing states. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: WHO Ad Hoc COVID-19 Research Ethics Review Committee (ERC) has approved this global protocol. When this protocol is adopted at specific country sites, national ERCs may make require adjustments in accordance with their respective national research ethics guidelines. Dissemination of this protocol and global findings will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04918875.

Time required to initiate a clinical trial in Canada at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational research-in-motion study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT. METHODS: We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation. RESULTS: All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 d, range 0-216 d). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals. INTERPRETATION: The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency.

Addressing health care inequities in Canadian critical care through inclusive science: a pilot tool for standardized data collection.

PURPOSE: Sociodemographic risks contributing to health inequities are often inadequately captured and reported in critical care studies. To address the lack of standardized terms and definitions, we sought to develop a practical and convenient resource of questions and response options for collecting sociodemographic variables for critical care research. SOURCE: To identify domains and variables that impact health equity, we searched: 1) PubMed for critical care randomized trials (2010 to 2021); 2) high-impact critical care and general medicine journals for special issues relating to equity; and 3) governmental and nongovernmental resources. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 23 domains associated with health equity, including pronouns, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, visible minorities, language, household income, marital/relationship status, education, disabilities, immigrant and refugee status, employment, primary care access, expanded health insurance, internet access, housing security, food security, dependents, religion, and postal code. For each domain we provided standardized questions and response options; for 13/23 domains, we included more than one version of the question and response categories. CONCLUSION: We developed a standardized, practical, and convenient demographic data collection tool for critical care research studies. Questions and response options can be adapted by researchers for inclusion in individual study questionnaires or case report forms.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les risques sociodémographiques qui contribuent aux inégalités en matière de santé sont souvent mal saisis et rapportés dans les études de soins intensifs. Pour remédier au manque de termes et de définitions normalisés, nous avons cherché à élaborer une ressource à la fois pratique et utile de questions et d'options de réponse pour le recueil des variables sociodémographiques pour la recherche en soins intensifs. SOURCES: Pour identifier les domaines et les variables qui ont une incidence sur l'équité en santé, nous avons effectué des recherches dans : 1) PubMed, pour en extraire les études randomisées en soins intensifs (2010 à 2021); 2) des revues de soins intensifs et de médecine générale à impact élevé pour identifier les numéros spéciaux liés à l'équité; et 3) les ressources gouvernementales et non gouvernementales. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nous avons identifié 23 domaines associés à l'équité en santé, y compris les pronoms, l'âge, le sexe, l'identité de genre, l'orientation sexuelle, la race et l'origine ethnique, les minorités visibles, la langue, le revenu du ménage, l'état matrimonial / relationnel, l'éducation, les handicaps, le statut d'immigrant·e et de réfugié·e, l'emploi, l'accès aux soins primaires, l'assurance maladie élargie, l'accès à l'internet, la sécurité du logement, la sécurité alimentaire, les personnes à charge, la religion et le code postal. Pour chaque domaine, nous avons fourni des questions et des options de réponse normalisées; pour 13/23 domaines, nous avons inclus plus d'une version des catégories de questions et réponses. CONCLUSION: Nous avons mis au point un outil de collecte de données démographiques normalisé, pratique et utile pour la recherche en soins intensifs. Les options de questions et de réponses peuvent être adaptées par les chercheuses et chercheurs pour être incluses dans des questionnaires d'étude individuels ou des formulaires de présentation de cas.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterization protocol: A prospective, multinational, observational study.

PURPOSE: To determine its cumulative incidence, identify the risk factors associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) development, and its impact clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study from the ISARIC database. We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions to explore the risk factors related to MACE development and determine its impact on 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 49,479 patients were included. Most were male 63.5% (31,441/49,479) and from high-income countries (84.4% [42,774/49,479]); however, >6000 patients were registered in low-and-middle-income countries. MACE cumulative incidence during their hospital stay was 17.8% (8829/49,479). The main risk factors independently associated with the development of MACE were older age, chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular disease, smoking history, and requirement of vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation at admission. The overall 28-day and 90-day mortality were higher among patients who developed MACE than those who did not (63.1% [5573/8829] vs. 35.6% [14,487/40,650] p < 0.001; 69.9% [6169/8829] vs. 37.8% [15,372/40,650] p < 0.001, respectively). After adjusting for confounders, MACE remained independently associated with higher 28-day and 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio [95% CI], 1.36 [1.33-1.39];1.47 [1.43-1.50], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 frequently develop MACE, which is independently associated with worse clinical outcomes.

The effect of antithrombotic treatment on mortality in patients with acute infection: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute infections cause relevant activation of innate immunity and inflammatory cascade. An excessive response against pathogens has been proved to trigger the pathophysiological process of thrombo-inflammation. Nevertheless, an association between the use of antithrombotic agents and the outcome of critically ill patients with infectious diseases is lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the impact of antithrombotic treatment on survival of patients with acute infective disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any antithrombotic agent in patients with infectious diseases other than COVID-19. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias evaluation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Summary estimates for mortality were calculated using the inverse-variance random-effects method. RESULTS: A total of 16,588 patients participating in 18 RCTs were included, of whom 2141 died. Four trials evaluated therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, 1 trial prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, 4 trials aspirin, and 9 trials other antithrombotic agents. Overall, the use of antithrombotic agents was not associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The use of antithrombotics is not associated with all-cause mortality in patients with infectious disease other than COVID-19. Complex pathophysiological interplays between inflammatory and thrombotic pathways may explain these results and need further investigation. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021241182.