Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia: The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. Objectives: To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. Design, Settings, and Participants: The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). Results: Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.

Use of almitrine in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and with persistent hypoxemia.

BACKGROUND: Almitrine, a selective pulmonary vasoconstrictor in hypoxic area, improves oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 but its effects in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 remain to be determined. METHODS: We prospectively studied the effects of almitrine (16 µg/kg/min over 30 min followed by continuous administration in responders only) in 62 patients (66% of male, 63 [53-69] years old) with COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNO) and with persistent hypoxemia, defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 100 with FiO2 > 80% after a single awake prone positioning session. Patients with an increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 20% were considered as responders. RESULTS: Overall, almitrine increased the PaO2/FiO2 ratio by 50% (p < 0.01), decreased the partial arterial pressure of carbon dioxide by 7% (p = 0.01) whereas the respiratory rate remained unchanged and 46 (74%) patients were responders. No patient experienced right ventricular dysfunction or acute cor pulmonale. The proportion of responders was similar regardless of the CT-Scan radiological pattern: 71% for the pattern with predominant ground-glass opacities and 76% for the pattern with predominant consolidations (p = 0.65). Responders had lower intubation rate (33 vs. 88%, p < 0.01), higher ventilator-free days at 28-day (28 [20-28 ] vs. 19 [2-24] days, p < 0.01) and shorter ICU length of stay (5 [3-10] vs.12 [7-30] days, p < 0.01) than non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Almitrine could be an interesting therapy in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 treated with HFNO and with persistent hypoxemia, given its effects on oxygenation without serious adverse effects regardless of the CT-Scan pattern, and potentially on intubation rate. These preliminary results need to be confirmed by further randomized studies.

Nicotine patches in patients on mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

PURPOSE: Epidemiologic studies have documented lower rates of active smokers compared to former or non-smokers in symptomatic patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine administered by a transdermal patch in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 18 intensive care units in France, we randomly assigned adult patients (non-smokers, non-vapers or who had quit smoking/vaping for at least 12 months) with proven COVID-19 pneumonia receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h to receive transdermal patches containing either nicotine at a daily dose of 14 mg or placebo until 48 h following successful weaning from mechanical ventilation or for a maximum of 30 days, followed by 3-week dose tapering by 3.5 mg per week. Randomization was stratified by centre, non- or former smoker status and Sequential Organ Function Assessment score (< or ≥ 7). The primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Main prespecified secondary outcomes included 60-day mortality, time to successful extubation, days alive and free from mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressor support or organ failure at day 28. RESULTS: Between November 6th 2020, and April 2nd 2021, 220 patients were randomized from 18 active recruiting centers. After excluding 2 patients who withdrew consent, 218 patients (152 [70%] men) were included in the analysis: 106 patients to the nicotine group and 112 to the placebo group. Day-28 mortality did not differ between the two groups (30 [28%] of 106 patients in the nicotine group vs 31 [28%] of 112 patients in the placebo group; odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.57-1.87]; p = 0.46). The median number of day-28 ventilator-free days was 0 (IQR 0-14) in the nicotine group and 0 (0-13) in the placebo group (with a difference estimate between the medians of 0 [95% CI -3-7]). Adverse events likely related to nicotine were rare (3%) and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients having developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, transdermal nicotine did not significantly reduce day-28 mortality. There is no indication to use nicotine in this situation.

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882.

Impact of Isolation Time of COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Unit on Healthcare Workers Contamination and Nursing Care Intensity.

Background: The optimal isolation time of COVID-19 patients in intensive care unit (ICU) is debated. We investigated the impact of two different COVID-19 patient isolation time strategies on healthcare workers (HCW) contamination, intensity of nursing care and potential associated adverse events. Methods: We prospectively included all consecutive COVID-19 patients and HCW in our ICU in the first two pandemic waves (March to May 2020 and August to November 2020). Specific isolation measures for COVID-19 patients were released after two negative RT-PCR assays in the first wave and 14 days after the onset of symptoms in the second wave. Contamination of HCW was assessed at the end of each pandemic wave by combining both a RT-PCR assay and a serological test. Results: Overall, 117 COVID-19 patients and 73 HCW were included. Despite an earlier release from isolation after ICU admission in the second than in the first wave [6 (4-8) vs. 15 (11-19) days, p < 0.01], the proportion of HCW with a positive serological test (16 vs. 17%, p = 0.94) or with a positive RT-PCR assay (3 vs. 5%, p = 0.58) was not different between the two waves. Although a lower nurse-to-bed ratio, the intensity of nursing care was higher in the second than in the first wave. A longer isolation time was associated with accidental extubation (OR = 1.18, 95%CI:1.07-1.35, p = 0.005) but neither with ventilator-associated pneumonia nor with dysglycemia. Conclusion: A shorter isolation time of COVID-19 patients in ICU was not associated with higher HCW contamination, while a longer isolation time seemed to be associated with higher accidental extubation.

Characteristics of Cardiac Injury in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac injury has been reported in up to 30% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, cardiac injury is defined mainly by troponin elevation without description of associated structural abnormalities and its time course has not been studied. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the ECG and echocardiographic abnormalities as well as their time course in critically ill COVID-19 patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The cardiac function of 43 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to two ICUs was assessed prospectively and repeatedly, combining ECG, cardiac biomarker, and transthoracic echocardiographic analyses from ICU admission to ICU discharge or death or to a maximum follow-up of 14 days. Cardiac injury was defined by troponin elevation and newly diagnosed ECG or echocardiographic abnormalities, or both. RESULTS: At baseline, 49% of patients demonstrated a cardiac injury, and 70% of patients experienced cardiac injury within the first 14 days of ICU stay, with a median time of occurrence of 3 days (range, 0-7 days). The most frequent abnormalities were ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of left ventricular (LV) abnormalities (87% of patients with cardiac injury), right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction (47%), pericardial effusion (43%), new-onset atrial arrhythmias (33%), LV relaxation impairment (33%), and LV systolic dysfunction (13%). Between baseline and day 14, the incidence of pericardial effusion and of new-onset atrial arrhythmias increased and the incidence of ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of LV abnormalities as well as the incidence of LV relaxation impairment remained stable, whereas the incidence of RV and LV systolic dysfunction decreased. INTERPRETATION: Cardiac injury is common and early in critically ill COVID-19 patients. ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of LV abnormalities were the most frequent abnormalities, and patients with cardiac injury experienced more RV than LV systolic dysfunction.

High Prevalence of Acquired Thrombophilia Without Prognosis Value in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background Recent literature reports a strong thrombotic tendency in patients hospitalized for a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. This characteristic is unusual and seems specific to COVID-19 infections, especially in their severe form. Viral infections can trigger acquired thrombophilia, which can then lead to thrombotic complications. We investigate for the presence of acquired thrombophilia, which could participate in this phenomenon, and report its prevalence. We also wonder if these thrombophilias participate in the bad prognosis of severe COVID-19 infections. Methods and Results In 89 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, we found a 20% prevalence of PS (protein S) deficiency and a high (ie, 72%) prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies: mainly lupus anticoagulant. The presence of PS deficiency or antiphospholipid antibodies was not linked with a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time nor with D-dimer, fibrinogen, or CRP (C-reactive protein) concentrations. These coagulation abnormalities are also not linked with thrombotic clinical events occurring during hospitalization nor with mortality. Conclusions We assess a high prevalence of positive tests detecting thrombophilia in COVID-19 infections. However, in our series, these acquired thrombophilias are not correlated with the severity of the disease nor with the occurrence of thrombotic events. Albeit the strong thrombotic tendency in COVID-19 infections, the presence of frequent acquired thrombophilia may be part of the inflammation storm of COVID-19 and should not systematically modify our strategy on prophylactic anticoagulant treatment, which is already revised upwards in this pathological condition. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04335162.

QT Interval Prolongation Under Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin Association for Inpatients With SARS-CoV-2 Lower Respiratory Tract Infection.

Association between Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Azithromycin (AZT) is under evaluation for patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). Both drugs have a known torsadogenic potential, but sparse data are available concerning QT prolongation induced by this association. Our objective was to assess for COVID-19 LRTI variations of QT interval under HCQ/AZT in patients hospitalized, and to compare manual versus automated QT measurements. Before therapy initiation, a baseline 12 lead-ECG was electronically sent to our cardiology department for automated and manual QT analysis (Bazett and Fridericia's correction), repeated 2 days after initiation. According to our institutional protocol (Pasteur University Hospital), HCQ/AZT was initiated only if baseline QTc ≤ 480ms and potassium level> 4.0 mmol/L. From March 24th to April 20th 2020, 73 patients were included (mean age 62 ± 14 years, male 67%). Two patients out of 73 (2.7%) were not eligible for drug initiation (QTc ≥ 500 ms). Baseline average automated QTc was 415 ± 29 ms and lengthened to 438 ± 40 ms after 48 hours of combined therapy. The treatment had to be stopped because of significant QTc prolongation in two out of 71 patients (2.8%). No drug-induced life-threatening arrhythmia, nor death was observed. Automated QTc measurements revealed accurate in comparison with manual QTc measurements. In this specific population of inpatients with COVID-19 LRTI, HCQ/AZT could not be initiated or had to be interrupted in less than 6% of the cases.