Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flumignan RL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8166900 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.
Flumignan Ronald Lg RL Tinôco Jéssica Dantas de Sá JDS Pascoal Patricia If PI Areias Libnah L LL Cossi Marcelly S MS Fernandes Maria Icd MI Costa Isabelle Kf IK Souza Larissa L Matar Charbel F CF Tendal Britta B Trevisani Virginia Fm VF Atallah Álvaro N ÁN Nakano Luis Cu LC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20201002
<h4>Background</h4>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have ind ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8895460 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have been shown to be excellent disease diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in a wide range of chronic and acute inflammatory and infectious diseases including viral respiratory infection. Crucially, circulating miRNA levels are thought to reflect the state of the diseased tissue. Despite their proven value as mechanism-based clinical stratification indicators, miRNAs have only started being explored in the context of COVID-19. here, we aimed to explore whether integrating miRNA with other clinical and biological measurements would reveal more accurate correlates of COVID-19 severity and outcome, and to identify severity-specific correlations of miRNAs with COVID-19-associated inflammatory mediators, clinical parameters, and otucome.
2021-12-09 | GSE189610 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundPatients often report persistent symptoms beyond the acute infectious phase of COVID-19. Hyperpolarised 129Xe MRI provides a way to directly measure airway functional abnormalities; the clinical relevance of 129Xe MRI ventilation defects in ever-hospitalised and never-hospitalised patients who had COVID-19 has not been ascertained. It remains unclear if persistent symptoms beyond the infectious phase are related to small airways disease and ventilation heterogeneity. Hence, we measured 129Xe MRI ventilation defects, pulmonary function and symptoms in ever-hospitalised and never-hospitalised patients who had COVID-19 with persistent symptoms consistent with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS).MethodsConsenting participants with a confirmed diagnosis of PACS completed 129Xe MRI, CT, spirometry, multi-breath inert-gas washout, 6-minute walk test, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale, modified Borg scale and International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Consenting ever-COVID volunteers completed 129Xe MRI and pulmonary function tests only.ResultsSeventy-six post-COVID and nine never-COVID participants were evaluated. Ventilation defect per cent (VDP) was abnormal and significantly greater in ever-COVID as compared with never-COVID participants (p<0.001) and significantly greater in ever-hospitalised compared with never-hospitalised participants who had COVID-19 (p=0.048), in whom diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon-monoxide (p=0.009) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) (p=0.005) were also significantly different. 129Xe MRI VDP was also related to the 6MWD (p=0.02) and post-exertional SpO2 (p=0.002). Participants with abnormal VDP (≥4.3%) had significantly worse 6MWD (p=0.003) and post-exertional SpO2 (p=0.03).Conclusion129Xe MRI VDP was significantly worse in ever-hospitalised as compared with never-hospitalised participants and was related to 6MWD and exertional SpO2 but not SGRQ or mMRC scores.Trial registration numberNCT05014516.
| S-EPMC9119175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern at the end of January 2020 and a pandemic two months later. The virus primarily spreads between humans via respiratory droplets, and is the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which can vary in severity, from asymptomatic or mild disease (the vast majority of the cases) to respiratory failure, multi-organ failure, and death. Recently, several vaccines were approved for emergency use against SARS-CoV-2. However, their worldwide availability is acutely limited, and therefore, SARS-CoV-2 is still expected to cause significant morbidity and mortality in the upcoming year. Hence, additional countermeasures are needed, particularly pharmaceutical drugs that are widely accessible, safe, scalable, and affordable. In this comprehensive review, we target the prophylactic arena, focusing on small-molecule candidates. In order to consolidate a potential list of such medications, which were categorized as either antivirals, repurposed drugs, or miscellaneous, a thorough screening for relevant clinical trials was conducted. A brief molecular and/or clinical background is provided for each potential drug, rationalizing its prophylactic use as an antiviral or inflammatory modulator. Drug safety profiles are discussed, and current medical indications and research status regarding their relevance to COVID-19 are shortly reviewed. In the near future, a significant body of information regarding the effectiveness of drugs being clinically studied for COVID-19 is expected to accumulate, in addition to information regarding the efficacy of prophylactic treatments.
| S-EPMC8310088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims and objectivesCritics have charged that evidence-based medicine (EBM) overemphasises algorithmic rules over unstructured clinical experience and intuition, but the role of structured decision support systems in improving health outcomes remains uncertain. We aim to assess if delivery of anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 according to an algorithm based on evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) improved clinical outcomes compared with administration of anticoagulant treatment given at individual practitioners' discretion.MethodsAn observational design consisting of the analysis of all acutely ill, consecutive patients (n = 1783) with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted between 10 March 2020 to 11 January 2022 to an US academic center. American Society of Haematology CPG for anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was converted into a clinical pathway and translated into fast-and-frugal decision (FFT) tree ('algorithm'). We compared delivery of anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 according to the FFT algorithm with administration of anticoagulant treatment given at individual practitioners' discretion.ResultsIn an adjusted analysis, using combination of Lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) and propensity score based weighting [augmented inverse-probability weighting] statistical techniques controlling for cluster data, the algorithm did not reduce death, venous thromboembolism, or major bleeding, but helped avoid longer hospital stay [number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) = 40 (95% CI: 23-143), indicating that for every 40 patients (23-143) managed on FFT algorithm, one avoided staying in hospital longer than 10 days] and averted admission to intensive-care unit (ICU) [NNT = 19 (95% CI: 13-40)]. All model's selected covariates were well balanced. The results remained robust to sensitivity analyses used to test the stability of the findings.ConclusionsWhen delivered using a structured FFT algorithm, CPG shortened the hospital stay and help avoided admission to ICU, but it did not affect other relevant outcomes.
| S-EPMC9840687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCD209L and its homologous protein CD209 act as alternative entry receptors for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are highly expressed in the virally targeted tissues. We tested for the presence and clinical features of autoantibodies targeting these receptors and compared these with autoantibodies known to be associated with COVID-19.MethodsUsing banked samples (n = 118) from Johns Hopkins patients hospitalised with COVID-19, we defined autoantibodies against CD209 and CD209L by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Clinical associations of these antibodies were compared with those of patients with anti-interferon (IFN) and anti-angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) autoantibodies.ResultsAmongst patients hospitalised with COVID-19, 19.5% (23/118) had IgM autoantibodies against CD209L and were more likely to have coronary artery disease (44% vs 19%, P = 0.03). Antibodies against CD209 were present in 5.9% (7/118); interestingly, all 7 were male (P = 0.02). In our study, the presence of either antibody was positively associated with disease severity [OR 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.80 (0.69-5.03)], but the association did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, 10/118 (8.5%) had IgG autoantibodies against IFNα, and 21 (17.8%) had IgM antibodies against ACE2. These patients had significantly worse prognosis (intubation or death) and prolonged hospital stays. However, when adjusting for patient characteristics on admission, only the presence of anti-ACE2 IgM remained significant [pooled common OR (95% CI), 4.14 (1.37, 12.54)].ConclusionWe describe IgM autoantibodies against CD209 and CD209L amongst patients hospitalised with COVID-19. These were not associated with disease severity. Conversely, patients with either anti-ACE2 IgM or anti-IFNα IgG antibodies had worse outcomes. Due to the small size of the study cohort, conclusions drawn should be considered cautiously.
| S-EPMC11671454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThis study's objective was to assess the risk of severe in-hospital complications of patients admitted for COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus (DM).DesignThis was a cross-sectional study.SettingsWe used pseudonymised medical record data provided by six general hospitals from the HM Hospitales group in Spain.Outcome measuresMultiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify variables associated with mortality and the composite of mortality or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in the overall population, and stratified for the presence or absence of DM. Spline analysis was conducted on the entire population to investigate the relationship between glucose levels at admission and outcomes.ResultsOverall, 1621 individuals without DM and 448 with DM were identified in the database. Patients with DM were on average 5.1 years older than those without. The overall in-hospital mortality was 18.6% (N=301), and was higher among patients with DM than those without (26.3% vs 11.3%; p<0.001). DM was independently associated with death, and death or IMV (OR=2.33, 95% CI: 1.7 to 3.1 and OR=2.11, 95% CI: 1.6 to 2.8, respectively; p<0.001). In subjects with DM, the only variables independently associated with both outcomes were age >65 years, male sex and pre-existing chronic kidney disease. We observed a non-linear relationship between blood glucose levels at admission and risk of in-hospital mortality and death or IMV. The highest probability for each outcome (around 50%) was at random glucose of around 550 mg/dL (30.6 mmol/L), and the risks flattened above this value.ConclusionThe results confirm the high burden associated with DM in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 infection, particularly among men, the elderly and those with impaired kidney function. Moreover, hyperglycaemia on admission was strongly associated with poor outcomes, suggesting that personalised optimisation could help to improve outcome during the hospital stay.
| S-EPMC8300551 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7295466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterised by dyspnoea and abnormal coagulation parameters, including raised D-dimer. Data suggests a high incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in ventilated patients with COVID-19.ObjectivesTo determine the incidence of PE in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and the diagnostic yield of Computer Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) for PE. We also examined the utility of D-dimer and conventional pre-test probability for diagnosis of PE in COVID-19.Patients/methodsRetrospective review of single-centre data of all CTPA studies in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 identified from Electronic Patient Records (EPR).ResultsThere were 1477 patients admitted with COVID-19 and 214 CTPA scans performed, of which n = 180 (84%) were requested outside of critical care. The diagnostic yield for PE was 37%. The overall proportion of PE in patients with COVID-19 was 5.4%. The proportions with Wells score of ≥4 ('PE likely') was 33/134 (25%) without PE vs 20/80 (25%) with PE (P = 0.951). The median National Early Warning-2 (NEWS2) score (illness severity) was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-9) in PE group vs 4 (IQR 2-7) in those without PE (P = 0.133). D-dimer was higher in PE (median 8000 ng/mL; IQR 4665-8000 ng/mL) than non-PE (2060 ng/mL, IQR 1210-4410 ng/mL, P < 0.001). In the 'low probability' group, D-dimer was higher (P < 0.001) in those with PE but had a limited role in excluding PE.ConclusionsEven outside of the critical care environment, PE in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 is common. Of note, approaching half of PE events were diagnosed on hospital admission. More data are needed to identify an optimal diagnostic pathway in patients with COVID-19. Randomised controlled trials of intensified thromboprophylaxis are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7351054 | biostudies-literature