Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Durable functional limitation in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 admitted to intensive care and the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation on functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae may create exercise limitation, impair the daily activity and thus impact the mental health and the social life. However, the extent of functional limitations and depressive symptoms are understudied especially in patients with COVID-19 after intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. METHODS The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) was a clinical trial that randomized ICU patients with COVID-19 to intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation. In the current study, we assessed the interval change in 30-day and 90-day functional limitations based on the post-COVID-19 functional status scale (PCFS) and depressive symptoms based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) in the trial participants. We also assessed the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation on the functional outcomes and depressive symptoms. RESULTS Of 600 randomized patients in INSPIRATION, 375 (age: 62 years; 42% women) participated in the functional status study. 195 patients died during the 90-day follow up (191 by day 30). Among survivors, between day 30 and day 90, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe functional limitation (PCSF grade 3-or-4) decreased from 20.0% to 4.8% (P <0.001) and PHQ-2 ≥ 3 decreased from 25.5% to 16.6% (P = 0.05). The proportion of patients with no functional limitations (PCFS grade 0) increased (4.2% to 15.4%, P<0.001). Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not impact the 90-day proportion of patients with PCFS grade 3-or-4 (5.3% vs 4.2%; odds ratio (OR), 1.20, [95% CI, 0.46-3.11]; P = 0.80) or PHQ-2 ≥ 3 (17.9% vs 15.3%; OR, 1.14, [95% CI, 0.79-1.65]; P = 0.14), with similar results when accounting for study center. CONCLUSION In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, functional limitations and depressive symptoms were common at 30-day follow-up and had some improvement by 90-day follow-up among survivors. Intermediate-dose compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not improve functional outcomes

Knowledge Gaps for Prophylactic Use of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients with COVID-19: Insights into New SARS-CoV-2 Variants, Vaccination Status, and Emerging Oral Antivirals.

Data suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results in a prothrombotic state leading to arterial and venous thromboses. Vaccination, novel antiviral drugs, and emerging variants have changed the course of the disease in many ways; however, their effects on the incidence of thrombotic events and the efficacy of preventative antithrombotic agents have not been yet evaluated. A systematic search was conducted to identify studies reported on the incidence of thrombotic events based on vaccination status, use of novel antiviral drugs, and emerging viral variants. Similarly, we screened the ongoing/published randomized trials of preventative antithrombotic therapy in any COVID-19 population to assess whether subgroup-specific results were reported based on any of these variants. Upon searching a total of 3,451 records, only one entry fulfilled the inclusion criteria of our systematic review, which was a self-controlled case series on 29,121,633 vaccinated individuals, the incidence rate ratio of thrombotic complication after breakthrough infection was 13.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.76-15.05) compared with 1.10 (95% CI: 1.02-1.18) during the 28-day postvaccination. In conclusion, although the mortality benefit of mass vaccination and the early promising results of the new antiviral therapies are well known, we were unable to find clinical evidence on whether vaccination, the use of novel antiviral agents, and emerging viral variants have affected the incidence rate of thrombotic events or impacted the efficacy of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in patients with COVID-19. Analyses from existing trials and large-scale registries can provide interim knowledge and any findings of relevance should be incorporated in the design of future trials

A stepwise approach to prescribing novel lipid-lowering medications

Dyslipidemia is a major modifiable risk factor for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Despite increasing high intensity statin prescription and adherence to statin therapy, a considerable number of patients will not reach the guideline directed goals due to statin intolerance, lack of adherence or treatment efficacy. Several new lipid lowering medications have received approval by regulatory agencies in the past decade including proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 modulators, ATP-citrate lyase inhibitors, angiopoietin-like 3 inhibitors, lomitapide, and icosapent ethyl. Although approved by regulatory agencies, these medications are still under-prescribed worldwide which may be related to cost issues, lack of cardiovascular outcome results, or clinicians not being familiar with their use. In this review, we propose a practical stepwise approach including each class\u27 efficacy, place in therapy, adverse effects, warnings and precautions, and monitoring parameters. This information can help the clinicians to prescribing these novel lipid lowering medications to achieve treatment goals and reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The aim is to shift the paradigm for high-intensity statins from watch and wait to initial combination therapy for high-risk patients

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Embolism:Review of the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial activation in the setting of a potent inflammatory reaction and a hypercoagulable state. The end result of this thromboinflammatory state is an excess in thrombotic events, in particular venous thromboembolism. Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been of special interest in patients with COVID-19 given its association with respiratory deterioration, increased risk of intensive care unit admission, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated PE may differ from the conventional non-COVID-19-associated PE. In addition to embolic events from deep vein thrombi, in situ pulmonary thrombosis, particularly in smaller vascular beds, may be relevant in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate prevention of thrombotic events in COVID-19 has therefore become of critical interest. Several changes in viral biology, vaccination, and treatment management during the pandemic may have resulted in changes in incidence trends. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of COVID-19-associated PE. Furthermore, we briefly summarize the results from randomized controlled trials of preventive antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19, focusing on their findings related to PE. We discuss the acute treatment of COVID-19-associated PE, which is substantially similar to the management of conventional non-COVID-19 PE. Ultimately, we comment on the current knowledge gaps in the evidence and the future directions in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19-associated PE, including long-term management, and its possible association with long-COVID

Comparison of Safety and Biological Efficacy of Anakinra (Kineret) Dispensed in Polycarbonate Plastic versus Borosilicate Glass Syringes: A Patient-Level Analysis of VCUART2 and VCUART3 Clinical Trials

Anakinra is a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Kineret is avail-able as a solution prepared in a borosilicate glass syringe. For imple-menting a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial, anakinra is commonly transferred into plastic syringes. However, there is limited data on anakinra's stability in polycarbonate syringes. We described the results of our previous studies on the use of ana-kinra in glass (VCUART3) versus plastic syringes (VCUART2) com-pared with placebo. These studies were conducted in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and we as-sessed the anti-inflammatory effects of anakinra versus placebo by comparing the area under the curve for high-sensitivity cardiac reac-tive protein (AUC-CRP) levels during the first 14 days of STEMI, its clinical effects on heart failure (HF) hospitalization, cardiovascular death, or new diagnosis of HF as well as adverse events profile be-tween groups. The levels of AUC-CRP were 75 (50-255 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) for anakinra in plastic syringes versus 255 (116-592 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) in placebo and 60 (24-139 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) and 86 (43-123 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) for anakinra once and twice daily in glass syringes, respectively, compared with placebo 214 (131-394 mg &amp; BULL;day/l). The rate of adverse events was also comparable between groups. There were no differences in the rate of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in patients who re-ceived anakinra in plastic or glass syringes. Fewer cases of new-onset heart failure occurred in patients receiving anakinra in plastic or glass syringes compared with placebo. Anakinra stored in plastic (polycarbonate) syringes provides comparable biologic and clinical effect to glass (borosilicate) syringes.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTAnakinra (Kineret) 100 mg administered subcutaneously in pa-tients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for a duration of up to 14 days appears to have comparable safety and biological efficacy signals when delivered in prefilled glass or transferred into plastic polycarbonate syringes. This may have important implications for the feasibility of designing clinical trials in STEMI and other clinical conditions

Use of novel antithrombotic agents for COVID-19:Systematic summary of ongoing randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with macro‐ and micro‐thromboses, which are triggered by endothelial cell activation, coagulopathy, and uncontrolled inflammatory response. Conventional antithrombotic agents are under assessment in dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with COVID‐19, with preliminary results not demonstrating benefit in several studies. OBJECTIVES: Given the possibility that more novel agents with antithrombotic effects may have a potential utility for management of patients with COVID‐19, we assessed ongoing RCTs including these agents with their potential mechanism of action in this population. METHODS: We searched clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify RCTs of novel antithrombotic agents in patients with COVID‐19. RESULTS: Based on a systematic literature search, 27 RCTs with 10 novel antithrombotic agents (including nafamostat, dociparstat, rNAPc2, and defibrotide) were identified. The results from these trials have not been disseminated yet. The studied drugs in the ongoing or completed RCTs include agents affecting the coagulation cascade, drugs affecting endothelial activation, and mixed acting agents. Their postulated antithrombotic mechanisms of action and their potential impact on patient management are summarized. CONCLUSION: Some novel antithrombotic agents have pleiotropic anti‐inflammatory and antiviral effects, which may help reduce the viral load or fibrosis, and improve oxygenation. Results from ongoing RCTs will elucidate their actual role in the management of patients with COVID‐19

Efficacy and Safety Considerations With Dose-Reduced Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review

Importance: Dose-reduced regimens of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be used for 2 main purposes: dose-adjusted treatment intended as full-intensity anticoagulation (eg, for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation [AF] in patients requiring dose reduction) or low-intensity treatment (eg, extended-duration treatment of venous thromboembolism [VTE]). We reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to understand the scenarios in which dose-adjusted or low-intensity DOACs were tested and reviewed the labeled indications by regulatory authorities, using data from large registries to assess whether the use of dose-reduced DOACs in routine practice aligned with the findings of RCTs. Observations: Among 4191 screened publications, 35 RCTs that used dose-adjusted DOACs were identified for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban. Of these 35 RCTs, 29 were related to stroke prevention in AF. Efficacy and safety results for dose-adjusted DOACs in large RCTs of AF were similar to those found for full-dose DOACs. To our knowledge, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban have not been studied as dose-adjusted therapy for acute VTE treatment. Low-intensity DOACs were identified in 37 RCTs. Low-intensity DOACs may be used for extended-duration treatment of VTE (apixaban and rivaroxaban), primary prevention in orthopedic surgeries (dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban), primary prevention in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients (apixaban and rivaroxaban) or (postdischarge) high-risk medical patients (rivaroxaban), in stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, or after a recent revascularization for peripheral artery disease in conjunction with aspirin (rivaroxaban). Minor variations exist between regulatory authorities in different regions regarding criteria for dose adjustment of DOACs. Data from large registries indicated that dose-reduced DOACs were used occasionally with doses or for clinical scenarios different from those studied in RCTs or recommended by regulatory authorities. Conclusions and relevance: Dose adjustment and low-intensity treatment are 2 different forms of dose-reduced DOACs. Dose adjustment is mostly relevant for AF and should be done based on the approved criteria. Dose adjustment of DOACs should not be used for acute VTE treatment in most cases. In contrast, low-intensity DOACs may be used for primary or secondary VTE prevention for studied and approved indications. Attention should be given to routine practice patterns to align the daily clinical practice with existing evidence of safety and efficacy