Abstract

INTRODUCTION The treatment of COVID-19 is still challenge. So convalescent plasma can be an important alternative of treatment. Protocols with nursing care during infusion is very important to guide an effective and safety care. OBJECTIVE to analyze the evidence in the literature on the action of convalescent plasma, of the use of protocols with nursing care to use convalescent plasma and build a nursing care protocol for transfusion in patients with COVID-19. METHODS Methodological study carried out in two stages: scoping review. The search was done using the descriptors: convalescent plasma transfusion, convalescent plasma, and acute respiratory syndromes or COVID-19, to found protocols and effectiveness of convalescent plasm. Beside was done a specialist panel to build the protocol. RESULTS Low-evidence studies have shown improvement in the clinical signs of COVID-19 using Convalescent Plasma, reduction or elimination of viral load, benefits in the production of lymphocytes, decreases C-reactive protein, increases titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, positive evolution in lung involvement identified by X-rays, decrease in hospitalization. No studies were found in the databases on the protocol for clinical nursing care in plasma transfusion. Therefore, a protocol was developed with the description of clinical nursing care to be performed before, during and after the transfusion by plasma: checking of vital signs and indicative signs of transfusion reaction, measurement of oxygen saturation, assessment of venous access and checking of the level of consciousness. CONCLUSION There are no evidence studies to support the use of plasma, nor anything related to bundles.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Recent studies have characterized racial disparities in the incidence of VTE. The aim of our study was to present a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between race and VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the number of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events reported by racial groups in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. For qualitative analysis, independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies, and we utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of design and content for accurate interpretation. For the quantitative analysis, we pooled the ORs with Der Simonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS The qualitative analysis included 11 studies, and the meta-analysis had six of them. All studies were observational, retrospective cohort studies, except for one retrospective case-control study. Six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis due to high interstudy heterogeneity; thus, variable reports of racial groups reduced the cohort to Black/African American and White patients (n = 9723) in the analysis. The estimated proportion for DVT/PE for Black/African American and Whites was 0.07 (95% CI [0.00, 0.10]) and 0.04 (95% CI [0.00, 0.07]), respectively. The p value of 0.13 suggest non-significant difference in VTE rates between Black/African American and White patients. CONCLUSION In our study, the proportion of DVT/PE events between Black/African American and White COVID-19 patients were comparable. Future COVID-19 studies should include systematic racial group reporting to identify disparities in the setting of thromboembolic events.

Abstract

Background - The new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have emerged as a global pandemic that threatens thousands around the world. Observational cohort studies have demonstrated that cancer patients have inferior outcomes due to underlying malignancy, treatment-related immunosuppression, or increased comorbidities. We aimed to examine the representation of cancer patients (hematological malignancies and solid tumors) in COVID-19 therapeutic and prophylactic interventional trials. Methods- In this review, all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between December 2019 and August 2021 were included. We included only trials evaluating medications that were recommended by NIH guidelines: steroids, Tocilizumab, Remdesivir and REGN-COV2. Results- The search yielded 540 potentially relevant RCTs, 22 of which were considered suitable. All trials included patients with solid cancer and hematological malignancies in the formal reported inclusion criteria. However, only two trials reported the accurate number of cancer patients included. Ten trials excluded neutropenic patients and seven trials excluded thrombocytopenic patients. Eleven trials excluded patients that were treated with any immunosuppression treatment. None of the two trials that included cancer patients reported separate outcomes for this population. Conclusion- Our systematic review shows that cancer patients are under-represented in COVID-19 interventional therapeutic trials, and evidence regarding outcomes are lacking.

Abstract

Introduction  Venous and arterial thromboses are frequently observed complications in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who require hospital admission. In this study, we evaluate the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge patients with COVID-19 infection. Materials and Method  EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched up to July 21, 2021, in addition to other sources. We included studies that assessed the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients. Results  A total of 16 studies (102,779 patients) were identified. The overall proportion of venous thromboembolic events in all patients, that is, ambulatory and postdischarge, was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28), 0.28% (95% CI: 0.07-0.64), and 1.16% (95% CI: 0.69-1.74), respectively. Arterial events occurred in 0.75% (95% CI: 0.27-1.47) of all patients, 1.45% (95% CI: 1.10-1.86) of postdischarge patients, and 0.23% (95% CI: 0.019-0.66) of ambulatory patients. The pooled incidence rate estimates per 1,000 patient-days for VTE events were 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.07-0.19) for outpatients and postdischarge, respectively, whereas for arterial events were 0.10 (95% CI: 0-0.30) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.16-0.37). Conclusion  This study found a low risk of venous and arterial thrombi in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients, with a higher risk in postdischarge patients compared with ambulatory patients. This suggests that regular universal thromboprophylaxis in these patient populations is probably not necessary.

Abstract

Implementation of higher dose (HD) thromboprophylaxis has been considered in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to compare HD to standard dose (SD) thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021284808). We searched for randomised controlled studies (CENTRAL, Embase, Medline and medRxviv) that compared HD to SD anticoagulation in COVID-19 and analysed outcomes such as mortality, thrombotic events, bleedings, and disease progression. The statistical analyses were made using the random effects model. Fourteen articles were included (6253 patients). HD compared with SD showed no difference in mortality (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.54-1.28]). The use of HD was associated with a decreased risk of thrombosis (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.44-0.76]), although with an increased risk of major bleeding (OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.25-2.16]). The cohort with D-dimer < 1 mg/mL showed no effect (OR 1.19 [95% CI 0.67-2.11]), but in the case of D-dimer > 1 mg/mL, a tendency of lower risk in the HD group was observed (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.31-1.00]). The need for intubation in moderately ill patients showed a nonsignificant lower likelihood in the HD group (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.63-1.08]). We cannot advocate for HD in all COVID-19 patients, although it shows some nonsignificant benefits on disease progression in those with elevated D-dimer who do not need ICU admission.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on nonfatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. METHODS We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) vs prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. RESULTS Eleven RCTs were included (N = 5873). Intensified vs prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .79-1.10]). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .49-1.44]; I (2) = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, .41-.69]; I (2) = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = .04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.17-2.56]) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend toward reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs. Clinical Trials Registration. CRD42021273449 (PROSPERO).

Abstract

Thromboembolism is one of the most severe manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thrombotic complications have been reported even with the administration of thromboprophylaxis. This has led many experts to have variable opinions on the most effective prophylactic strategy and to anticipate the discovery of the ideal dosing of anticoagulation to reduce thromboembolic events and related mortality. We performed a systematic review to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation is superior to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation by comparing mortality rates, bleeding risks, and rates of thromboembolism. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to create our systematic review. Twenty-two records were collected from PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), after which they undertook quality appraisals. A total of 124 studies were analyzed in six systematic reviews and meta-analyses, one pooled analysis, two multicenter retrospective cohort studies, one observational study, one retrospective chart review, one evidence-based protocol, and four narrative reviews.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has outbroken into a global pandemic. The death rate for hospital patients varied between 11% and 15%. Although COVID-19 is extremely contagious and has a high fatality rate, the amount of knowledge available in the published literature and public sources is rapidly growing. The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for COVID-19 is controversial. OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19 through a literature survey. METHODS Until August 30, 2021, a literature search was undertaken in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlling Trials (Central), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in dichotomous data. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in continuous data. Studies with missing or unsuitable data were presented descriptively in the outcomes. RESULTS In total, thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis, which included a total of 13232 participants. Our results revealed that the CP group has lower mortality compared to the control group, and there was a statistically significant difference (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.89, Z = 2.92, P = 0.004 < 0.01); other secondary outcomes such as the shortness of breath symptom improved significantly in CP group (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.93, Z = 2.85, P = 0.004 < 0.01), as well as Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (MD: -4.46, 95% CI: -8.28, -0.63, Z = 2.28, P = 0.02 < 0.05) and Ferritin (MD: -447.68, 95% CI: -501.75, -393.6, Z = 16.23, P < 0.00001) are reduced significantly in CP group. However, there was no statistically significant change in the ventilator withdrawal rate, imaging results improvement, or days to hospital discharge. There was also no substantial difference in viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate and neutralizing antibody-positive conversion rate, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS The safety and potential efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy offer a promising treatment strategy for COVID-19. CP therapy can reduce mortality and improve breath and inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and Ferritin in COVID-19 with no significant increase in adverse reactions. However, it does not affect improving virology indicators. In summary, more high-quality clinical trials are needed to verify the conclusion of the present study.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES the present paper aimed to study available literature on the hypercoagulability state of pediatric patients affected by COVID-19, and the current management of thrombosis in these patients, considering that no guidelines have been published since now in this age group. METHODS N 244 titles were screened using the selected MESH words, 180 abstracts and 120 full texts were read, 12 articles were included, and four were analysed by meta-analysis. RESULTS Over 1128 COVID-19 positive patients, nearly half of them developed inflammatory sequelae, and 7.35% (40 patients over 544 who developed MIS-C) had thrombotic events. Less than 50% of patients with inflammatory disease were under anticoagulant prophylactic treatment, and doses of anticoagulant protocols vary from different centres. Thrombotic events prevented after the start of unfractioned heparin (UFH) therapy, even if 1.06% (4 patients) died. Only two patients presented complications after anticoagulant treatment, with non-fatal bleeding after UFH treatment. No other complications were reported. No difference in the incidence of thrombotic events between patients under prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and without was found in meta-analysis (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS Little is known on the incidence and management of hyper coagulopathy in pediatric COVID-19 infection. Further studies have to clarify this topic.

Abstract

BACKGROUND With the results of the largest randomized controlled trial (RECOVERY) and the most extensive retrospective cohort study on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recently published, we performed a meta-analysis on the association of aspirin with mortality of COVID-19. We aimed to investigate the role of aspirin in COVID-19 hospitalizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for studies from 1 January 2020 until 20 July 2022, that compared aspirin versus non-aspirin use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We excluded case reports, review articles and studies on non-hospitalized COVID-19 infections. We used the inverse variance method and random effects model to pool the individual studies. RESULTS Ten observational studies and one randomized controlled trial met the criteria for inclusion. There were 136 695 total patients, of which 27 168 were in the aspirin group and 109 527 were in the non-aspirin group. Aspirin use was associated with a 14% decrease in all-cause mortality compared with non-aspirin use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 [relative risk (RR) 0.86, confidence interval (95% CI) 0.76-0.97; P = 0.002; I (2 )=64%]. Among subgroups of studies reporting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 hospitalizations, aspirin use was associated with a 16% decrease in in-hospital mortality compared with non-aspirin use (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99; P = 0.007; I (2) =64%). CONCLUSION Our study shows that aspirin decreases in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Further studies are needed to assess which COVID-19 patient populations benefit most, such as patients on aspirin for primary versus secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease. In addition, significant bleeding also needs to be considered when assessing the risk-benefit of aspirin use.