Search

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.).

Introduction: Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is a rare bleeding disorder characterized by autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). Estimates of AHA incidence are largely based on registry data, which may be prone to referral bias. Population‐based studies can enhance our understanding of the epidemiology, presentation and outcomes of AHA. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population‐based cohort study of all AHA diagnosed and treated in Manitoba, Canada over a 15‐year period. Using records from the sole provincial reference laboratory, we identified all patients with FVIII inhibitors who did not have congenital haemophilia. Using a piloted case report form, patient data was ascertained from hospital and bleeding disorder clinic records. Results: From 2006 to 2021, we identified 34 patients with AHA, corresponding to a population‐based incidence rate of AHA of 1.78 cases per million per year. The median age at presentation was 76 years and most cases were idiopathic (79%). Almost all patients (97%) presented with bleeding, of which 58% were considered major bleeds and required haemostatic agents in 67%. Longstanding unexplained bleeding symptoms were commonly reported, suggesting delayed diagnosis. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) was administered in 88% of patients. Remission was achieved in 79% of patients; median time to remission was 2.1 months. There were two deaths due to bleeding. No deaths due to IST were reported. Conclusion: The population‐based incidence of AHA in Manitoba is 1.78 cases/million/year. Bleeding is common and can be life‐threatening. AHA outcomes are encouraging with the use of haemostatic agents and IST. Serious treatment‐associated morbidity and mortality is uncommon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: Statistical approaches have been developed to detect bias in individual trials, but guidance on how to detect systematic differences at a meta-analytical level is lacking. In this paper, we elucidate whether author bias can be detected in a cohort of randomized trials included in a meta-analysis.Methods: We utilized mortality data from 35 trials (10,880 patients) included in our previously published meta-analysis. First, we linked each author with their trial (or trials). Then we calculated author-specific odds ratios using univariate cross table methods. Finally, we tested the effect of authorship by comparing each author's estimated odds ratio with all other pooled estimated odds ratios using meta-regression.Results: The median number of investigators named as authors on the primary trial reports was six (interquartile range: 5-8, range: 2-32). The results showed that the slope of author effect for mortality ranged from - 1.35 to 0.71. We identified only one author team showing a marginally significant effect (- 0.39; 95% confidence interval, - 0.78 to 0.00). This author team has a history of retractions due to data manipulations and ethical violations.Conclusion: When combining trial-level data to produce a pooled effect estimate, investigators must consider sources of potential bias. Our results suggest that systematic errors can be detected using meta-regression, although further research is needed to examine the sensitivity of this model. Systematic reviewers will benefit from the availability of methods to guard against the dissemination of results with the potential to mislead decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Iron supplementation in iron-deficiency anaemia is standard practice, but the benefits of iron supplementation in iron-deficient non-anaemic (IDNA) individuals remains controversial. Our objective is to identify the effects of iron therapy on fatigue and physical capacity in IDNA adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Setting Primary care. Participants Adults (=18 years) who were iron deficient but non-anaemic. Interventions Oral, intramuscular or intravenous iron supplementation; all therapy doses, frequencies and durations were included. Comparators Placebo or active therapy. Results We identified RCTs in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, SportDiscus and CAB Abstracts from inception to 31 October 2016. We searched the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for relevant ongoing trials and performed forward searches of included trials and relevant reviews in Web of Science. We assessed internal validity of included trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the external validity using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. From 11 580 citations, we included 18 unique trials and 2 companion papers enrolling 1170 patients. Using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, iron supplementation was associated with reduced selfreported fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.23; I2 0%; 4 trials; 714 participants) but was not associated with differences in objective measures of physical capacity, including maximal oxygen consumption (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.37; I2 0%; 9 trials; 235 participants) and timed methods of exercise testing. Iron supplementation significantly increased serum haemoglobin concentration (MD 4.01 g/L; 95% CI 1.22 to 6.81; I2 48%; 12 trials; 298 participants) and serum ferritin (MD 9.23 µmol/L; 95% CI 6.48 to 11.97; I2 58%; 14 trials; 616 participants). Conclusion In IDNA adults, iron supplementation is associated with reduced subjective measures of fatigue but not with objective improvements in physical capacity. Given the global prevalence of both iron deficiency and fatigue, patients and practitioners could consider consumption of iron-rich foods or iron supplementation to improve symptoms of fatigue in the absence of documented anaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]