ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations

Author Correction: Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial (Nature Medicine, (2021), 27, 11, (2012-2024), 10.1038/s41591-021-01488-2)

In the version of this Article initially published, there was an omission in the member list for the CONCOR-1 Study Group. Valérie Arsenault (Héma-Québec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) has now been included in the CONCOR-1 Study Group in the online version of the article

The Rise of Adaptive Platform Trials in Critical Care

As durable learning research systems, adaptive platform trials represent a transformative new approach to accelerating clinical evaluation and discovery in critical care. This Perspective provides a brief introduction to the concept of adaptive platform trials, describes several established and emerging platforms in critical care, and surveys some opportunities and challenges for their implementation and impact.<br/

Multicountry survey of emergency and critical care medicine physicians' fluid resuscitation practices for adult patients with early septic shock

Evidence to guide fluid resuscitation evidence in sepsis continues to evolve. We conducted a multicountry survey of emergency and critical care physicians to describe current stated practice and practice variation related to the quantity, rapidity and type of resuscitation fluid administered in early septic shock to inform the design of future septic shock fluid resuscitation trials.Using a web-based survey tool, we invited critical care and emergency physicians in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia and Saudi Arabia to complete a self-administered electronic survey.A total of 1097 physicians responses were included. 1 L was the most frequent quantity of resuscitation fluid physicians indicated they would administer at a time (46.9%, n=499). Most (63.0%, n=671) stated that they would administer the fluid challenges as quickly as possible. Overall, normal saline and Ringers solutions were the preferred crystalloid fluids used often or always in 53.1% (n=556) and 60.5% (n=632) of instances, respectively. However, emergency physicians indicated that they would use normal saline often or always in 83.9% (n=376) of instances, while critical care physicians said that they would use saline often or always in 27.9% (n=150) of instances. Only 1.0% (n=10) of respondents indicated that they would use hydroxyethyl starch often or always; use of 5% (5.6% (n=59)) or 20-25% albumin (1.3% (n=14)) was also infrequent. The majority (88.4%, n=896) of respondents indicated that a large randomised controlled trial comparing 5% albumin to a crystalloid fluid in early septic shock was important to conduct.Critical care and emergency physicians stated that they rapidly infuse volumes of 500-1000 mL of resuscitation fluid in early septic shock. Colloid use, specifically the use of albumin, was infrequently reported. Our survey identifies the need to conduct a trial on the efficacy of albumin and crystalloids on 90-day mortality in patients with early septic shock

Sex differences evident in elevated anxiety symptoms in multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis

IntroductionImmune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), such as multiple sclerosis (MS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have high rates of elevated anxiety symptoms. This can may worsen functioning and increase IMID disease burden. The rate of and factors associated with elevated anxiety symptoms may differ between males and females, which, in turn can affect diagnosis and disease management. We evaluated whether the frequency and factors associated with comorbid elevated anxiety symptoms in those with an IMID differed by sex.MethodsParticipants with an IMID (MS, IBD or RA) completed two anxiety measures (HADS, GAD-7). We used logistic regression to investigate whether sex differences exist in the presence of comorbid elevated anxiety symptoms or in the endorsement of individual anxiety items in those with an IMID.ResultsOf 656 participants, females with an IMID were more likely to have elevated anxiety symptoms compared to males (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.05; 95%CI: 1.2, 3.6). Younger age, higher depressive symptoms and income were also associated with elevated anxiety symptoms in IMID. Lower income in males with an IMID, but not females, was associated with elevated anxiety symptoms (aOR: 4.8; 95%CI: 1.5, 15.6). No other factors demonstrated a sex difference. Males had nearly twice the odds of endorsing restlessness on the GAD-7 (OR = 1.8, 95%CI: 1.07, 3.15) compared to females.DiscussionWe found evidence for sex differences in the factors associated with experiencing elevated anxiety symptoms in those with an IMID. These findings could be helpful to sensitize clinicians to monitor for comorbid anxiety symptoms in males with an IMID

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care