The effect of higher-intensity dosing of anticoagulation on the clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to summarize the overall evidence from randomized controlled trials related to higher-intensity anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes between intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest at a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 5405 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.71–1.19) but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.42–0.72), and significantly increased odds of development of major bleeding (pooled OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.20–2.72) with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation relative to prophylactic anticoagulation, with adequate evidence against our model hypothesis of “no significant difference”, at the current sample size. Subgroup analysis in patients with a severe course of COVID-19 observed a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.45–0.98) but no significant difference in the odds of development of major bleeding events (pooled OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.74–2.56), with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: There were net clinical benefits with higher-intensity-dosing anticoagulation relative to prophylactic-dosing anticoagulation among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19

COVID-19 first anniversary review of cases, hospitalization, and mortality in the UK

Introduction: The first confirmed COVID-19 case in UK dates to 11 January 2020, exhibiting its first peak during April 2020. The country has since been hit by another wave in the winter 2020, almost at the first anniversary of the pandemic.Areas covered: An in-depth analysis of the COVID-19 positive cases in the UK throughout the year, hospitalizations, patients in critical care, and COVID-19 associated deaths.Expert opinion: The COVID-19 associated hospital admission accounts to 15% of total COVID-19 positive cases in November 2020. The percentage of total COVID-19 positive patients in the country died from the disease was under 4% in November 2020. Total deaths in England (all-cause) from June to October 2020 were similar to the historic averages. Age was the single most determinator of COVID-19 associated mortality, 50 years or older accounted for 98% of total COVID deaths. Age distribution of COVID-19 associated deaths in 2020 was similar to all-cause mortality age distribution in 2019. There was no significant improvement in the survival rate of COVID-19 patients receiving critical care. This prompts an urgent need to invest in novel antiviral therapeutics to save the most vulnerable in the society

The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies and risk of hospital admission and mortality in patients with COVID-19:a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM: Several randomized trials have evaluated the effect of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies on the risk of hospital admission and risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to summarize the overall evidence in the form of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible studies published up to 29 June 2021. The outcomes of interest were hospital admission and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relative to nonuse of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Our systematic literature search identified nine randomized controlled trials. Three trials had an overall low risk of bias, while four trials had some concerns in the overall risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.33–1.47), but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of hospital admission (pooled OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.21–0.42), with the administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, at the current sample size. CONCLUSION: The reduced risk of hospital admission with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies use suggests that the timing of neutralizing antibodies administration is key in preventing hospital admission and, ultimately, death. Future randomized trials should aim to determine if the clinical outcomes with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies differ based on serostatus

Antifungal Treatment of Mucormycosis-Associated with COVID-19

Not Applicabl

An evaluation of medication appropriateness and frailty among residents of aged care homes in Malaysia: A cross-sectional study

Aging is significantly associated with the development of comorbid chronic conditions. These conditions indicate the use of multiple medications, and are often warranted by clinical guidelines. The aim of the present study was to evaluate medication appropriateness and frailty among Malaysian aged care home residents with chronic disease. The participants were 202 elderly (≥65 years) individuals, a cross-sectional sample from 17 aged care homes. After ethics approval, each participant was interviewed to collect data on sociodemographics, frailty status (Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI]), medication appropriateness (Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), the 2015 Beers’ criteria (Potentially Inappropriate Medication [PIM]), and 2014 STOPP criteria (Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing [PIP]). The findings show that 81% (n = 164) and 42% (n = 85) were taking medications for cardiovascular and central nervous system-related conditions, respectively, and 34% were using medications for diabetes (n = 69). Each participant had a mean of 2.9 ± 1.5 chronic diseases, with an average GFI score of 6.4 ± 3.6. More than three-quarters of the participants (76%) were frail and polypharmacy was a factor in nearly half (48%); 41% and 36% were prescribed at least one PIP and PIM, respectively, whereas the average MAI score was 0.6 (range: 0–6). The number of medications used per participant correlated significantly and positively (0.21, P = .002) with GFI score. These findings reinforce the need for participants of aged care homes to receive periodic medication review aimed at minimizing morbidity associated with inappropriate pharmacotherapy

Economic evaluation of prescribing conventional and newer oral anticoagulants in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulants refer to a variety of agents that inhibit one or more steps in the coagulation cascade. Generally, clinical conditions that require the prescribing of an oral anticoagulant increase in frequency with age. However, a major challenge of anticoagulation use among older patients is that this group of patients also experience the highest bleeding risk. To date, economic evaluation of prescribing of anticoagulants that includes the novel or newer oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in older adults has not been conducted and is warranted. Areas covered: A review of articles that evaluated the cost of prescribing conventional (e.g. vitamin K antagonists) and NOACs (e.g. direct thrombin inhibitors and direct factor Xa inhibitors) in older adults. Expert commentary: While the use of NOACs significantly increases the cost of the initial treatment for thromboembolic disorders, they are still considered cost-effective relative to warfarin since they offer reduced risk of intracranial haemorrhagic events. The optimum anticoagulation with warfarin can be achieved by providing specialised care; clinics managed by pharmacists have been shown to be cost-effective relative to usual care. There are suggestions that genotyping the CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genes is useful for determining a more appropriate initial dose and thereby increasing the effectiveness and safety of warfarin