Heterogeneous treatment effects of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19

Importance Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures Organ support–free days, assigning a value of −1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support–free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support–free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI 90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT0437258

Impact of intensive glycemic control on the incidence of atrial fibrillation and associated cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (from the action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes study)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is prevalent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and is associated with markers of poor glycemic control; however, the impact of glycemic control on incident AF and outcomes is unknown. The aims of this study were to prospectively evaluate if intensive glycemic control in patients with DM affects incident AF and to evaluate morbidity and mortality in patients with DM and incident AF. A total of 10,082 patients with DM from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) cohort were studied in a randomized, double-blind fashion. Participants were randomized to an intensive therapeutic strategy targeting a glycated hemoglobin level of &lt;6.0% or a standard strategy targeting a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% to 7.9%. Incident AF occurred in 159 patients (1.58%) over the follow-up period, at a rate of 5.9 per 1,000 patient-years in the intensive-therapy group and a rate of 6.37 per 1,000 patient-years in the standard-therapy group (p = 0.52). In a multivariate model, predictors of incident AF were age, weight, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and heart failure history. Patients with DM and new-onset AF had a hazard ratio of 2.65 for all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 3.86, p &lt;0.0001), a hazard ratio of 2.1 for myocardial infarction (95%confidence interval 1.33 to 3.31, p = 0.0015), and a hazard ratio of 3.80 for the development of heart failure (95% confidence interval 2.48 to 5.84, p &lt;0.0001). In conclusion, intensive glycemic control did not affect the rate of new-onset AF. Patients with DM and incident AF had an increased risk for morbidity and mortality compared with those without AF. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019

© 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery Objective: In the present study, we sought to better characterize the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most at risk of severe, outpatient thrombosis by defining the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with arterial or venous thrombosis diagnosed at admission. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. We found a shift in the proportions of thrombosis subtypes from 2019 to 2020, with declines in ST-segment myocardial infarction (from 22.0% to 10.1% of thrombotic events) and stroke (from 48.6% to 37.2%) and an increase in venous thromboembolism (from 29.4% to 52.7%). The patients with COVID-19–associated thrombosis were younger (age, 58 years vs 64 years; P =.043) and were less frequently women (31.3% vs 43.9%; P =.16). However, no differences were found in the body mass index or major comorbidities between those with and without COVID-19. COVID-19–associated thrombosis correlated with greater mortality (15.2% vs 4.3%; P =.016). The biometric profile of patients admitted with COVID-19–associated thrombosis compared with regular thrombosis showed significant changes in the complete blood count, liver function test results, D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and coagulation panels. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization had increased mortality compared with outpatients without COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization. Given the significantly higher inflammatory marker levels, it is possible this is related to different mechanisms of thrombotic disease in these patients. The inflammation could be a therapeutic target to reduce the risk, or aid in the treatment, of thrombosis. We call for more studies elucidating the role that immunothrombosis might be playing in patients with COVID-19

Risk of thrombotic events after respiratory infection requiring hospitalization

© 2021, The Author(s). Thrombosis is a major concern in respiratory infections. Our aim was to investigate the magnitude and duration of risk for arterial and venous thrombosis following discharge after respiratory infection. Patients with respiratory infections were identified using the United States Nationwide Readmission Database from 2012 to 2014. Patients admitted with asthma or cellulitis served as comparators. Readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (MI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were evaluated at 30 to 180 days. The likelihood of a first thrombotic event after discharge was compared with a 30-day period prior to hospitalization. Among 5,271,068 patients discharged after a respiratory infection, 0.56% and 0.78% were readmitted within 30-days with MI and VTE, respectively. Relative to asthma and cellulitis, respiratory infection was associated with a greater age and sex-adjusted hazard of 30-day readmission for MI (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.48 [95% CI 1.42–1.54] vs. asthma; aHR 1.36 [95% CI 1.31–1.41] vs. cellulitis) and VTE (aHR 1.28 [95% CI 1.24–1.33] vs. asthma; aHR 1.26, [95% CI 1.22–1.30] vs. cellulitis). Risks of MI and VTE attenuated over time. In a crossover-cohort analysis, the odds of MI (OR 1.68 [95% CI 1.62–1.73]) and VTE (OR 3.30 [95% 3.19–3.41]) were higher in the 30 days following discharge after respiratory infection than during the 30-day baseline period. Hospitalization for respiratory infection was associated with increased risks of thrombosis that were highest in the first 30-days after discharge and declined over time

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.</p