Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: INSPIRATION Investigators

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9212871 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsMulticenter 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.InterventionsIntermediate-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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. METHODS:The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 × 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20,000/fL) for the anticoagulation hypothesis. In a prespecified secondary analysis for non-inferiority, the study will test for the non-inferiority of intermediate intensity versus standard dose anticoagulation for major bleeding, considering a non-inferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio. Key safety endpoints for the statin hypothesis include rise in liver enzymes >3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the current prescribing practices of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the associated clinical outcomes, including the incidence of major bleeding episodes and the need for intervention (endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology guided).DesignObservational, retrospective chart review.Setting and participantsSingle large academic center study. Participants included patients with critical illness who were admitted to the intensive care units (ICU) at Mayo Clinic from January 1st, 2012, until May 4th, 2018. Adult ICU patients with a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or edoxaban) listed as one of the active medications at the time of hospital admission were included.Results37 249 patients in medical and surgical intensive care units were screened for the study period. After excluding patients who did not qualify, 558 unique encounters were included. The median age was 69 (IQR 59-78) years; most patients were male, white Caucasians, and had a median SOFA score of 4. After excluding the patients who had major bleeding episodes in the first 24 hours, 188 (39%) were continued on the same DOAC therapy, 204 (42%) were discontinued without transitioning to another agent, and 95 (20%) were transitioned to another agent. Finally, 410 (84%) were dismissed on DOAC therapy at the end of hospitalization. The difference in the continuation rate of the same DOAC agent beyond 24 hours, discontinuation without transition to an alternate agent, or discontinuation of DOAC with a transition to an alternate anticoagulation agent was not statistically significant (P = .60). A total of 52 major bleeding events were identified. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding complication [n (%): 34 (65)], followed by intra-abdominal and peri-procedural bleeding [7 (13.5) and 7 (13.5)]. Thirty-three (65%) patients had a major bleeding complication requiring intervention.ConclusionsOur single-center retrospective study describes the current prescribing practices and preliminary outcomes in ICU patients with prehospital use of DOACs. Up to 20% of the patients were transitioned to a different agent within 24 hours of ICU admission, whereas a significant proportion of patients (42%) had anticoagulation discontinued altogether. Most patients who suffered a major bleeding episode required either endoscopic or surgical intervention to control bleeding.

Project description:ImportanceGiven the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative.ObjectivesTo determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies.Design, settings, and participantsThe ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days.Main outcomes and measuresA hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death).ResultsAmong the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.

Project description:BackgroundPrelacteal feeding compromises the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding, thereby increasing neonatal malnutrition, infection and mortality. About 26% of the Ethiopian neonates are given prelacteal feeds and nearly 48% of whom are attributed to Amhara region. Besides, prior Ethiopian studies have shown significance of the problem at different community settings in the country. However, the prevalence and associated factors of prelacteal feeding among neonatal admissions has been overlooked in the country in general and in the study area in particular. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of prelacteal feeding among neonatal admissions in the study setting.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 321 mother-neonate pairs admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of Debre Tabor General Hospital between September 2018 and February 2019. Every fourth mother neonate pair was included to the study. Multivariable logistic regressions were fitted to find out adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of factors associated with pre-lacteal feeding.ResultsThe prevalence of prelacteal feeding was 20.2% [95% CI: 15.31-26.75%]. Plain water was the most common prelacteal food (32.3%). Factors associated with prelacteal feeding include rural residence (AOR?=?4.07, 95% CI: 1.30, 12.81), primiparity (AOR?=?4.50, 95% CI: 1.30-12.81), less than four ANC visits (AOR?=?4.71, 95% CI: 1.23-17.84), spousal accompany to ANC (AOR?=?0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.75), home delivery (AOR?=?5.94, 95% CI: 1.80-19.67), having twin newborns (AOR?=?6.69, 95% CI: 1.25, 35.91) and maternal belief on the purported advantages of prelacteal feeding (AOR?=?2.74, 95% CI: 2.09-25.39).Conclusion and recommendationOne out of five sick neonates was given prelacteal feeds. Twin neonates, home delivered neonates, rural neonates, neonates born to primiparous mothers, neonates delivered from mothers who had less than four ANC visits, neonates born to mothers who weren't accompanied by their spouse during ANC and those born to mothers who believe on the purported advantages of prelacteal feeding had higher odds of receiving prelacteal feeds. Therefore, mothers of these vulnerable neonates should be provided with more emphasis about counseling of infant and young child feeding practice during their stay at NICU.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingNationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system.ParticipantsAll 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion.ResultsOf 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsEarly initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.