The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 critically ill patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses: a multicenter, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that non-critically ill COVID-19 patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses have poor clinical outcomes. However, limited studies focused on this co-infections in critically ill patients. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients infected with COVID-19 and co-infected by other respiratory viruses. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted for all adult patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalized in the ICUs between March, 2020 and July, 2021. Eligible patients were sub-categorized into two groups based on simultaneous co-infection with other respiratory viruses throughout their ICU stay. Influenza A or B, Human Adenovirus (AdV), Human Coronavirus (i.e., 229E, HKU1, NL63, or OC43), Human Metapneumovirus, Human Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Parainfluenza virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) were among the respiratory viral infections screened. Patients were followed until discharge from the hospital or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 836 patients were included in the final analysis. Eleven patients (1.3%) were infected concomitantly with other respiratory viruses. Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (38.5%) was the most commonly reported co-infection. No difference was observed between the two groups regarding the 30-day mortality (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13, 1.20; p = 0.10). The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among co-infected patients with other respiratory viruses compared with patients who were infected with COVID-19 alone (HR 0.32 95% CI 0.10, 0.97; p = 0.04). Patients concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had longer median mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and hospital length of stay (LOS). CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had comparable 30-day mortality to those not concomitantly infected. Further proactive testing and care may be required in the case of co-infection with respiratory viruses and COVID-19. The results of our study need to be confirmed by larger studies.

Real-World Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Apixaban & Rivaroxaban Lead-in Dosing Compared to Parenteral Lead-in Dosing in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Although parenteral anticoagulation lead-in is not recommended with apixaban and rivaroxaban, parenteral anticoagulation is often used to replace apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in doses for the initial phase treatment of VTE. Thus, our study compares the safety and effectiveness of lead-in parenteral anticoagulation to lead-in apixaban or rivaroxaban in patients who received apixaban or rivaroxaban for VTE treatment. Methods: A multi-center retrospective cohort study included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to the hospital with acute VTE and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Patients were grouped depending on the lead-in anticoagulation received for initial VTE treatment into the "Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) lead-in" group if patients received an appropriate lead-in dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban and patients who received parenteral lead-in the "parenteral lead-in" group. Results: A total of 389 patients were included; the DOAC lead-in group included 296 patients, whereas 93 patients were in the parenteral lead-in group. VTE recurrence (rVTE) during hospitalization and within 30 days was numerically higher in the parenteral lead-in group compared to the DOAC lead-in group (3.3% vs 0.6%; p=0.09 and 1.1% vs 0.7%; p=0.560), with a significantly higher number of patients with rVTE at 90 days (5.4% vs 1.4%; p=0.039). However, none of the patient's characteristics were significantly associated with the incidence of rVTE. In addition, the major bleeding rate during hospitalization was significantly higher among the parenteral lead-in group than in the DOAC lead-in group (14.0% vs 3.7%; p<0.001). Conclusion: Parenteral anticoagulation lead-in before starting maintenance of apixaban and rivaroxaban showed a significantly higher risk of bleeding and a trend toward higher VTE recurrence than the DOAC lead-in. This study adds to the evidence supporting the utilization of the DOAC lead-in regimen in treating patients with VTE. Still, larger studies with robust designs are needed to confirm these findings.

The impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors use on the clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, cohort study.

Background: The cardiovascular complications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the hyperinflammatory state leading to increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) are known to have pleiotropic and anti-inflammatory effects and may have antiviral activity along with their cholesterol-lowering activity. Thus, statin therapy is potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection. This study investigated the impact of statin use on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the statin use during ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score based on patient's age and admission APACHE II and SOFA scores. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while 30 day mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 30 days, and ICU complications were secondary endpoints. Results: A total of 1,049 patients were eligible; 502 patients were included after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). The in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.54, 0.89), P = 0.004] and 30-day mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.03] were significantly lower in patients who received statin therapy on multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Moreover, patients who received statin therapy had lower odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.32, 0.69), P < 0.001], lower levels of inflammatory markers on follow-up, and no increased risk of liver injury. Conclusion: The use of statin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a beneficial role and survival benefit with a good safety profile.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: 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 classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.