Real-world analysis of integration of sacubitril/valsartan into clinical practice in Saudi Arabia.

Despite the demonstrated advantages of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure, the pivotal Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, which explored this class of medications, did not include individuals from Saudi Arabia. Recognizing that different nations and ethnic groups may exhibit unique characteristics, this study aimed to compare the demographics and outcomes of patients in Saudi Arabia who received sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) with those enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial. In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we included all adult patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) within a tertiary healthcare system in Saudi Arabia between January 2018 and December 2021 and were initiated on Sac/Val. The primary objective was to compare the patient characteristics of those initiating Sac/Val treatment with the participants in the PARADIGM-HF trial. The secondary endpoints included the initiation setting, dose initiation, and titration, as well as alterations in B-type natriuretic peptide and ejection fraction at the 6-month mark. Furthermore, we reported the hospitalization and mortality event rates at the 12-month time point. The study included 400 patients with HFrEF receiving Sac/Val. Compared with the PARADIGM-HF trial, the cohort had a younger mean age and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus. SAC/VAL was prescribed as the initial therapy for 34% of the patients, while the remaining participants were initially treated with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker before transitioning to Sac/Val. Approximately 75% of patients were initiated on 100 mg Sac/Val twice daily, and 90% initiated therapy in the inpatient setting. The mean ejection fraction significantly improved from 26.5 ±â€…8.4% to 30.5 ±â€…6.4% at 6 months (P < .001), while the median B-type natriuretic peptide level change was not significant (P = .39). Our study revealed notable disparities in the baseline characteristics of patients with HFrEF compared with those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. These findings offer valuable real-world insights into the prescription patterns and outcomes of Sac/Val in patients with HFrEF in Saudi Arabia, an aspect not previously represented in the PARADIGM-HF study.

Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Non-Critically Ill Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose "control group" were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis "intervention group". Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.

Long-term Cardiovascular Adverse Events Induced by Fluoroquinolones: A Retrospective Case-control Study.

ABSTRACT: A correlation is already established between fluoroquinolones (FQs) use and cardiovascular events (CVEs), such as QT prolongation; however, serious events such as aortic aneurysm and valve regurgitation have also been reported with FQs. Several unstudied factors could contribute to the development of different CVEs that were not previously evaluated with FQ therapy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the incidence of different serious CVEs after completion of FQ therapy and potential associating factors. This was a retrospective case-control study of inpatients who received ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, or moxifloxacin for ≥3 days. Patients' echocardiograms were evaluated for the development of aortic or valvular disease or worsening of an existing condition after completion of therapy. Of 373 included patients, 83 developed new valvular disease or worsening of an existing disease, where tricuspid valve regurgitation was the most common CVE (50/83; 60.2%), followed by mitral valve diseases (48/83; 57.8%). Aortic valve regurgitation occurred more commonly with moxifloxacin compared with ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin (17.8% vs. 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.01). Median time to CVE detection ranged 93-166 days for all FQs. The receipt of moxifloxacin and elevated baseline QT interval were associated with an increased CVEs risk (adjusted odds ratio 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.11 and adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04, respectively). Other factors did not show such association. The lack of association of different factors with the occurrence of CVEs indicates that all patients receiving FQ therapy, especially moxifloxacin, should be monitored during the first-year after therapy. Alternatively, other antibiotics with a better safety profile may be considered.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

Statins and Risk of Thrombosis in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Coagulation abnormalities are one of the most important complications of severe COVID-19, which might lead to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Hypercoagulability with hyperfibrinogenemia causes large vessel thrombosis and major thromboembolic sequelae. Statins are potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection due to their pleiotropic effect. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of statins in reducing the risk of thrombosis among hospitalized critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were categorized based on their usage of statins throughout their ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score. The primary endpoint was the odds of all cases of thrombosis; other outcomes were considered secondary. RESULTS: A total of 1039 patients were eligible; following propensity score matching, 396 patients were included (1:1 ratio). The odds of all thrombosis cases and VTE events did not differ significantly between the two groups (OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.43, 1.66), P = 0.62 and OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43, 2.98), P = 0.81, respectively. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients who received statin therapy had lower 30-day (HR 0.72 (95 % CI 0.54, 0.97), P = 0.03) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.51, 0.89), P = 0.007). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the two groups except for D-dimer levels (peak) during ICU stay. CONCLUSION: The use of statin therapy during ICU stay was not associated with thrombosis reduction in critically ill patients with COVID-19; however, it has been associated with survival benefits.

Evaluation of Apixaban in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Case Series and Review of Literature.

Several guidelines endorsed the indefinite use warfarin or heparin-containing products for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and secondary prevention and discouraged the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for patients diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). However, adequate anticoagulation despite warfarin therapy remains a challenge in APS patients. Using DOACs in APS patients is seen in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence to support their use in this population. In this case series, we aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of apixaban use in nine patients with primary or secondary APS at King Abdulaziz Medical City (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). All patients presented with APS and received apixaban with or without concomitant antiplatelet. Three patients had double positivity, and two patients had triple positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Some patients tolerated apixaban during the follow-up period, but recurrent VTE and stroke were reported in some of them. Bleeding complications were evident in some cases as well. In conclusion, warfarin remains the best choice to prevent VTE recurrence in patients with APS. On the other side, apixaban use in patients with APS may have some safety and effectiveness concerns evidenced by VTE recurrence and bleeding complications. The safety and effectiveness of utilizing apixaban in APS patients need to be assessed in well-controlled randomized trials.

What the near Future Holds for Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Summary of Major Ongoing Studies.

Early research on neprilysin inhibition showed that sacubitril/valsartan, a combination of the valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. Therefore, for patients with HFrEF, worldwide recommendations have been reformed to include sacubitril/valsartan. In addition, sacubitril/valsartan has been investigated in other cardiovascular disease states, such as patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and following myocardial infarction (MI) events. In February 2021, the FDA expanded the indication use of sacubitril/valsartan to include the HFpEF patient population based on the results of the PARAGON-HF trial. However, randomized clinical trials post-MI did not show promising results. Sacubitril/valsartan is currently being investigated in many other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. This review aims to shed light and summarize the ongoing sacubitril/valsartan registered studies on the United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.