Search

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is an uncommon site of venous thromboembolism. CVST more commonly affects younger people and women, in stark contrast to other forms of venous thrombosis in which incidence increases with age and overall affects men. Traditional risk factors for the development of CVST include endogenous and exogenous estrogen (combined oral contraceptives and pregnancy and the puerperium), thrombophilias, and rare hematologic disorders. New and emerging risk factors include obesity, polycystic ovary syndrome, COVID-19 infection, and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis-like disorders. Management centers around anticoagulation, management of the underlying cause, and consideration of invasive measures including endovascular thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy and craniectomy for severe cases. This review discusses the emerging risk factors and their identification, evidence for treatment including the use of direct oral anticoagulants, and the role of invasive management options., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests There are no competing interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was first started for humans in early 1970s by Robert Bartlett. Since its inception, there have been numerous challenges with extracorporeal circulation, such as coagulation and platelet activation, followed by consumption of coagulation factors and platelets, and biocompatibility of tubing, pump, and oxygenator. Unfractionated heparin (heparin hereafter) has historically been the defacto anticoagulant until recently. Also, coagulation monitoring was mainly based on bedside activated clotting time and activated partial thromboplastin time. In the past 50 years, the technology of ECMO has advanced tremendously, and thus, the survival rate has improved significantly. The indication for ECMO has also expanded. Among these are clinical conditions such as postcardiopulmonary bypass, sepsis, ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and even severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Not surprisingly, the number of ECMO cases has increased according to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and prolonged ECMO support has become more prevalent. It is not uncommon for patients with COVID-19 to be on ECMO support for more than 1 year until recovery or lung transplant. With that being said, complications of bleeding, thrombosis, clot formation in the circuit, and intravascular hemolysis still remain and continue to be major challenges. Here, several clinical ECMO experts, including the "Father of ECMO"-Dr. Robert Bartlett, describe the history and advances of ECMO., Competing Interests: D.J.A. received research funding from Bayer plc and Leo Pharma. J.T. received honorarium from Entegrion and member of DSMB for Evaheart. T.R. has the patent of activators of factor XII. M.C. received grants from Genentech, Agios Pharmaceutical, and Novartis, and honoraria from Genentech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, BPL, CSL Behring, Genzyme Corp, Emerging Therapies Solutions, and Novo Nordisk; all outside this article., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite its diagnostic and prognostic importance, physiologic dead space fraction is not included in the current ARDS definition or severity classification. ARDS caused by COVID-19 (C-ARDS) is characterized by increased physiologic dead space fraction and hypoxemia. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between dead space indices, markers of inflammation, immunothrombosis, severity and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality., Results: Retrospective data including demographics, gas exchange, ventilatory parameters, and respiratory mechanics in the first 24 h of invasive ventilation. Plasma concentrations of D-dimers and ferritin were not significantly different across C-ARDS severity categories. Weak relationships were found between D-dimers and VR (r = 0.07, p = 0.13), P ET CO 2 /PaCO 2 (r = -0.1, p = 0.02), or estimated dead space fraction (r = 0.019, p = 0.68). Age, PaO 2 /FiO 2 , pH, P ET CO 2 /PaCO 2 and ferritin, were independently associated with ICU mortality. We found no association between D-dimers or ferritin and any dead-space indices adjusting for PaO 2 /FiO 2 , days of ventilation, tidal volume, and respiratory system compliance., Conclusions: We report no association between dead space and inflammatory markers in mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS. Our results support theories suggesting that multiple mechanisms, in addition to immunothrombosis, play a role in the pathophysiology of respiratory failure and degree of dead space in C-ARDS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest in writing this manuscript., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID-19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC., Objectives: Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials., Search Methods: Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms 'COVID', 'amyloid', 'fibrin', 'fibrinogen'. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress., Selection Criteria: Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre-developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind)., Main Results: Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria., Authors' Conclusions: In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objectives: To explore the experiences of people up to 18 months after being diagnosed with vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT)., Design: A semistructured qualitative study, conducted via Zoom, of a cohort of people with VITT., Setting: Participants discussed their experiences of hospitalisation and following discharge., Participants: 14 individuals diagnosed with VITT, recruited via a Facebook support group and advertising on Twitter., Results: Thematic analysis identified challenges of obtaining medical care and diagnosis; fear of the severity of symptoms and unclear prognosis; and lack of family support due to isolation imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Once home, participants experienced continued significant symptoms; fear of recurrence; inadequate medical knowledge of their condition; and difficulties coping with residual physical disabilities and psychosocial losses. Also reported were feelings of isolation and abandonment due to lack of government support., Conclusions: This is a significantly challenged group of people, with multiple health, financial, social and psychological losses. These losses have been compounded by experiences of limited governmental and societal recognition of the problems they face., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The emergence and attendant mortality of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) as a consequence of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have resulted in some patients with VITT being considered as deceased organ donors. Outcomes after kidney transplantation in this context are poorly described. Because the disease seems to be mediated by antiplatelet factor 4 antibodies, there is a theoretical risk of transmission via passenger leukocytes within the allograft., Methods: We analyzed the experience of kidney transplantation from donors with VITT in the United Kingdom between January and June 2021. We followed-up all recipients of kidney-only transplants from donors with VITT to detect major postoperative complications or features of disease transmission and assess graft survival and function., Results: There were 16 kidney donors and 30 single kidney transplant recipients in our study period. Of 11 preimplantation biopsies, 4 showed widespread glomerular microthrombi. After a median of 5 mo, patient and graft survival were 97% and 90%, respectively. The median 3-mo estimated glomerular filtration rate was 51 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . Two recipients had detectable antiplatelet factor 4 antibodies but no evidence of clinical disease after transplantation. Major hemorrhagic complications occurred in 3 recipients, all of whom had independent risk factors for bleeding, resulting in the loss of 2 grafts. The involvement of VITT could not be completely excluded in one of these cases., Conclusions: The UK experience to date shows that favorable outcomes are possible after kidney transplantation from donors with VITT but highlights the need for ongoing vigilance for donor-related complications in these patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid development of a range of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a rare but life-threatening complication of primarily adenoviral-based vaccines associated with the presence of antibodies to a PF4/polyanion neoepitope and measured by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Presented are serial anti-PF4/polyanion antibody, platelet, and D-dimer measurements in a large cohort of patients and their relation to relapse. Overall, 51% of patients using the Stago assay had persistently positive anti-PF4/polyanion levels 100 days' postdiagnosis, whereas 94% of patients monitored by using the Immucor assay remain positive. The median duration of positivity of the PF4 assay is 87 days, with 72% of patients remaining positive after a median follow-up of 105 days. The use of plasma exchange seemed to reduce anti-PF4/polyanion levels and increase platelet counts in the acute setting more rapidly than other therapies. The rate of relapse in this study was 12.6%, with all relapsed cases exhibiting persistently positive PF4 antibodies and falling platelet counts. Only one patient had extension of their thrombosis. Overall, despite the persistence of PF4 antibodies in 72% of patients, the rate of relapse was low and did not seem to result in recrudescence of the aggressive clinical picture seen at index presentation. Monitoring of these patients in the UK cohort is ongoing and will aid in definition of the natural history of this novel condition., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions., Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

A proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop moderate or severe COVID-19, with an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. The inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause an acute-phase response and endothelial dysfunction, which contribute to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy, the clinical and laboratory features of which differ in some respects from those of classic disseminated intravascular coagulation. Understanding of the pathophysiology of thrombosis in COVID-19 is needed to develop approaches to management and prevention, with implications for short-term and long-term health outcomes. Evidence is emerging to support treatment decisions in patients with COVID-19, but many questions remain about the optimum approach to management. In this Viewpoint, we provide a summary of the pathophysiology of thrombosis and associated laboratory and clinical findings, and highlight key considerations in the management of coagulopathy in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19, including coagulation assessment, identification of thromboembolic complications, and use of antithrombotic prophylaxis and therapeutic anticoagulation. We await the results of trials that are underway to establish the safety and benefits of prolonged thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2021 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the development of highly effective vaccines that provide hope to the global community for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and limiting the mortality and morbidity caused by the disease. These vaccines have been produced using differing technologies, taken through clinical trials, and rolled out across the UK at unprecedented speed. However, the recent emergence of rare cases of life-threatening thrombosis in association with thrombocytopenia has threatened to derail one particular vaccine, the Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine, upon which many countries are dependent for their vaccination programmes. The story of how this situation has been managed in the UK at the height of the vaccine roll-out represents a remarkable collective endeavour on the part of the haematology community, working closely with other acute medical and surgical professionals within the NHS and the UK health regulatory bodies, to provide rapid expert guidance that has saved lives and helped keep the national vaccination programme on track., (© Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Declaration of interests based on NICE’s policy on conflicts of interests is available at https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/Who-we-are/Policies-and-procedures/code-of-practice-for-declaring-and-managing-conflicts-of-interest.pdf. The guideline authors’ full statements can be viewed at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng200/documents/expert-advisers

Objectives: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a lifesaving therapy for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome refractory to conventional mechanical ventilation. It is frequently complicated by both thrombosis and hemorrhage. A markedly prothrombotic state associated with high rates of venous thromboembolism has been described in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019) infection. These rates have currently not been described during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in comparison to other viral pneumonias., Design: Retrospective observational study., Setting: Single high-volume tertiary critical care department at a university hospital., Patients: Patients 16 years old or greater receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, with coronavirus disease 2019 were compared with a cohort of patients with influenza pneumonia between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2020., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The rates of venous thromboembolism and hemorrhage were compared in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 against a historic population of patients with influenza pneumonia who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. There were 51 patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 80 patients with influenza. At cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 37% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with 8% of patients with influenza had filling defects on CT pulmonary angiography (p = 0.0001). Catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis shown on ultrasound Doppler after decannulation was present in 53% with coronavirus disease 2019 versus 25% with influenza (p = 0.01). The rates of intracranial hemorrhage at the time of cannulation were 16% with coronavirus disease 2019 and 14% with influenza (p = 0.8). Elevated d-dimer levels were seen in both conditions and were significantly higher in those with pulmonary thromboembolism than those without in coronavirus disease 2019 (p = 0.02). Fibrinogen and C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in those with coronavirus disease 2019 than influenza (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Significant rates of pulmonary thromboembolism and of catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis were seen in both viral infections but were greater in those requiring the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in coronavirus disease 2019 than for influenza., Competing Interests: Dr. Hunt disclosed that she is the Medical Director of Thrombosis UK. Dr. Barrett received research and educational support from Maquet and ALung Incorporated. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Individual studies have reported widely variable rates for VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Research Question: What is the incidence of VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with COVID-19?, Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 15 standard sources and COVID-19-specific sources were searched between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, with no restriction according to language. Incidence estimates were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I 2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed by using the Begg and Egger tests., Results: The pooled incidence was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.4-20.9) for VTE, 12.1% (95% CI, 8.4-16.4) for DVT, 7.1% (95% CI, 5.3-9.1) for pulmonary embolism (PE), 7.8% (95% CI, 2.6-15.3) for bleeding, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.2-7.9) for major bleeding. In subgroup meta-analyses, the incidence of VTE was higher when assessed according to screening (33.1% vs 9.8% by clinical diagnosis), among patients in the ICU (27.9% vs 7.1% in the ward), in prospective studies (25.5% vs 12.4% in retrospective studies), and with the inclusion of catheter-associated thrombosis/isolated distal DVTs and isolated subsegmental PEs. The highest pooled incidence estimate of bleeding was reported for patients receiving intermediate- or full-dose anticoagulation (21.4%) and the lowest in the only prospective study that assessed bleeding events (2.7%)., Interpretation: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the overall estimated pooled incidence of VTE was 17.0%, with higher rates with routine screening, inclusion of distal DVT, and subsegmental PE, in critically ill patients and in prospective studies. Bleeding events were observed in 7.8% of patients and were sensitive to use of escalated doses of anticoagulants and nature of data collection. Additional studies are required to ascertain the significance of various thrombotic events and to identify strategies to improve patient outcomes., Trial Registry: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020198864; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical Question: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19., Recommendation: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty)., How This Guideline Was Created: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Understanding the New Recommendation: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19., Updates: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline., Readers Note: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All guideline panel members have completed the WHO interest disclosure form. All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest of disclosure form. The WHO, MAGIC, and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. MAGIC and TheBMJ assessed declared interests from other co-authors of this publication and found no conflicts of interests., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design. METHODS: Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded. RESULTS: The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS. CONCLUSION: Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 are at high risk of thrombotic complications and organ failure, and often exhibit severe inflammation, which may contribute to hypercoagulability. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients hospitalized for COVID-19 experience differing frequencies of thrombotic and organ failure complications and derive variable benefits from therapeutic-dose heparin dependent on the extent of systemic inflammation and whether observed benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation varies depending on the degree of systemic inflammation. METHODS: We analyzed data from 1346 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in the ATTACC and ACTIV-4a platforms who were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care for whom levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) were reported at baseline. RESULTS: Increased CRP was associated with worse patient outcomes, including a >98% posterior probability of increased organ support requirement, hospital length of stay, risk of 28-day mortality, and incidence of major thrombotic events or death (patients with CRP 40-100 mg/L or ≥100 mg/L compared to patients with CRP

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Objectives: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug reported to inhibit the Corona virus, SARS-CoV-2, in vitro. At present there is insufficient evidence from clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19. However, since the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorisation to allow HCQ and Chloroquine (CQ) to be distributed and used for certain hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and numerous clinical trials are underway around the world, including the UK based RECOVERY trial, with over 1000 volunteers. The validation of a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for the simultaneous determination of HCQ and two of its major metabolites, desethylchloroquine (DCQ) and di-desethylchloroquine (DDCQ), in whole blood is described. Methods: Blood samples were deproteinised using acetonitrile. HCQ, DCQ and DDCQ were chromatographically separated on a biphenyl column with gradient elution, at a flow rate of 500 μL/min. The analysis time was 8 min. Results: For each analyte linear calibration curves were obtained over the concentration range 50-2000 μg/L, the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was 13 μg/L, the inter-assay relative standard deviation (RSD) was <10% at 25, 800 and 1750 μg/L and mean recoveries were 80, 81, 78 and 62% for HCQ, d4-HCQ, DCQ and DDCQ, respectively. Conclusion: This method has acceptable analytical performance and is applicable to the therapeutic monitoring of HCQ, evaluating the pharmacokinetics of HCQ in COVID-19 patients and supporting clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those who are infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related CoronaVirus-2 are theoretically at increased risk of venous thromboembolism during self-isolation if they have reduced mobility or are dehydrated. Should patients develop coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring hospital admission for treatment of hypoxia, the risk for thromboembolic complications increases greatly. These thromboembolic events are the result of at least two distinct mechanisms - microvascular thrombosis in the pulmonary system (immunothrombosis) and hospital-associated venous thromboembolism. Since pregnancy is a prothrombotic state, there is concern regarding the potentially increased risk of thrombotic complications among pregnant women with COVID-19. To date, however, pregnant women do not appear to have a substantially increased risk of thrombotic complications related to COVID-19. Nevertheless, several organizations have vigilantly issued pregnancy-specific guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19. Discrepancies between these guidelines reflect the altruistic wish to protect patients and lack of high-quality evidence available to inform clinical practice. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the drug of choice for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women with COVID-19. However, its utility in non-pregnant patients is only established against venous thromboembolism, as LMWH may have little or no effect on immunothrombosis. Decisions about initiation and duration of prophylactic anticoagulation in the context of pregnancy and COVID-19 must take into consideration disease severity, outpatient vs inpatient status, temporal relation between disease occurrence and timing of childbirth, and the underlying prothrombotic risk conferred by additional comorbidities. There is currently no evidence to recommend the use of intermediate or therapeutic doses of LMWH in thromboprophylaxis, which may increase bleeding risk without reducing thrombotic risk in pregnant patients with COVID-19. Likewise, there is no evidence to comment on the role of low-dose aspirin in thromboprophylaxis or of anti-cytokine and antiviral agents in preventing immunothrombosis. These unanswered questions are being studied within the context of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endothelial injury and microvascular/macrovascular thrombosis are common pathophysiological features of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, the optimal thromboprophylactic regimens remain unknown across the spectrum of illness severity of COVID-19. A variety of antithrombotic agents, doses, and durations of therapy are being assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focus on outpatients, hospitalized patients in medical wards, and patients critically ill with COVID-19. This paper provides a perspective of the ongoing or completed RCTs related to antithrombotic strategies used in COVID-19, the opportunities and challenges for the clinical trial enterprise, and areas of existing knowledge, as well as data gaps that may motivate the design of future RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Venous thrombosis is common in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. • Many of these thromboses may be immunothromboses due to local inflammation, rather than thromboembolic disease. • Anticoagulated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have a risk of major bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]