Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS: Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 (OVID): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: OVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed. FINDINGS: At the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates. FUNDING: SNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

Mimics and chameleons of COVID-19: patient presentation and accuracy of triage during the first wave.

STUDY AIMS: To quantify mimics and chameleons of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the triage protocol, and to describe the resulting groups of mimics and chameleons - including their presenting symptoms and final diagnoses. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including all adult patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the emergency department of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland during the first wave of pandemic in spring 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of triage was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio. Triage to the group of suspected (+) and not suspected (-) COVID-19 was considered the index test, whereas a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result was used as reference standard. Mimics were defined as false positives and chameleons as false negatives. RESULTS: Of 2898 patients included in the analysis, 191 were true positives, 895 were false positives (mimics), 9 were false negatives (chameleons) and 1803 were true negatives. This resulted in a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98) and a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for standardised triage. Among mimics, the main categories of final diagnoses were other infections (n = 513, 57.3%), cardiovascular diseases (excluding cerebrovascular) (n = 125, 14%), and non-infectious diseases of the respiratory system (n = 84, 9.4%). Fever (n = 357, 39.9% vs n = 104, 54.5%), cough (n = 466, 52.1% vs n = 126 66%), and smell or taste dysfunction (n = 60, 6.7% vs n = 24, 12.6%) were less frequently observed in mimics than in COVID-19 patients. Eight of nine COVID-19 chameleons presented with either nonspecific complaints (weakness and/or fatigue) or gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics. Clinical differentiation between true positives and false positives is not feasible due to largely overlapping symptoms. Prevalence of chameleons was very low.

Disparities in emergency department access, resource allocation, and outcomes between migrants and the local population.

AIMS: To characterize a group of migrant emergency department (ED) patients regarding demographics, access to the ED, mode of referral, use of resources, and short-term outcomes, and to compare them to a group of local ED patients. METHODS: Prospective cohort study with consecutive enrollment of adult patients presenting to the ED of a Swiss tertiary care hospital from October 21st to November 11th, 2013 and February 1st to February 23rd, 2015. In accordance with the International Organization for Migration, we defined migrants as persons who have changed their country of usual residence, irrespective of their legal status. The primary outcome was defined as the number of resources allocated to migrants, as compared to local patients, using uni- and multivariable quasi-Poisson regressions. Acute morbidity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Migrant patients were younger, more often male and self-presenters, and of lower acuity. After adjustment for age, gender and acuity, we observed a non-significant difference of 3.6% in the mean number of resources allocated to migrant patients as compared to local patients (adjusted RR 0.964, CI 0.923-1.006). No difference in 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.777, CI 0.346-1.559) was observed between the two patient groups, but migrant patients had lower odds of acute morbidity (adjusted OR 0.652, CI 0.560-0.759), hospitalization (adjusted OR 0.666, CI 0.555-0.799), and ICU admission (adjusted OR 0.649, CI 0.456-0.910). CONCLUSIONS: ED access approximation, resource allocation, and mortality were comparable between migrant patients and local patients. Lower admission rates to wards and the ICU may raise concerns but can be explained by lower acute morbidity in migrant patients.

Direct Comparison of Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Risk Prediction in Patients with COVID-19 and Controls-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Most studies investigating early risk predictors in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) lacked comparison with controls. We aimed to assess and directly compare outcomes and risk predictors at time of emergency department (ED) presentation in COVID-19 and controls. Consecutive patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled. COVID-19-patients were compared with (i) patients tested negative (overall controls) and (ii) patients tested negative, who had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Primary outcome was the composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death at 30 days. Among 1081 consecutive cases, 191 (18%) were tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 890 (82%) were tested negative (overall controls), of which 323 (30%) had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Incidence of the composite outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19 (23%) as compared with the overall control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.45 (95%CI, 1.61-3.74), p < 0.001) or the respiratory control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.93 (95%CI, 1.66-5.17), p < 0.001). Blood oxygen saturation, age, high-sensitivity troponin, c-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase were identified as the strongest predictors of poor outcome available at time of ED presentation in COVID-19 with highly comparable prognostic utility in overall and respiratory controls. In conclusion, patients presenting to the ED with COVID-19 have a worse outcome than controls, even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Most predictors of poor outcome in COVID-19 were not restricted to COVID-19, but of comparable prognostic utility in controls and therefore generalizable to unselected patients with suspected COVID-19.

Association of Frailty with Adverse Outcomes in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection.

Older age and frailty are predictors of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. In emergency medicine, patients do not present with the diagnosis, but with suspicion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to assess the association of frailty and age with death or admission to intensive care in patients with suspected COVID-19. This single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in the Emergency Department of a tertiary care hospital. Patients, 65 years and older, with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department during the first wave of the pandemic were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab tests. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) > 4, were considered to be frail. Associations between age, gender, frailty, and COVID-19 status with the composite adverse outcome of 30-day-intensive-care-admission and/or 30-day-mortality were tested. In the 372 patients analysed, the median age was 77 years, 154 (41.4%) were women, 44 (11.8%) were COVID-19-positive, and 125 (33.6%) were frail. The worst outcome was seen in frail COVID-19-patients with six (66.7%) adverse outcomes. Frailty (CFS > 4) and COVID-19-positivity were associated with an adverse outcome after adjustment for age and gender (frailty: OR 5.01, CI 2.56-10.17, p < 0.001; COVID-19: OR 3.47, CI 1.48-7.89, p = 0.003). Frailty was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and outperformed age as a predictor in emergency patients with suspected COVID-19.