Background COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0•3-0•7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34•8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41•3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0•86 [95% CI 0•59-1•22], p=0•40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3•64 [95% CI 1•61-8•27], p=0•0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagul...

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02086136.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The absence of specific antivirals to treat COVID-19 leads to the repositioning of candidates’ drugs. Nitazoxanide (NTZ) has a broad antiviral effect. Methods This was a randomized, double-blind pilot clinical trial comparing NTZ 600 mg BID versus Placebo for seven days among 50 individuals (25 each arm) with SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR+ (PCR) that were hospitalized with mild respiratory insufficiency from May 20 th , 2020, to September 21 st , 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04348409). Clinical and virologic endpoints and inflammatory biomarkers were evaluated. A five-point scale for disease severity (SSD) was used. Findings Two patients died in the NTZ arm compared to 6 in the placebo arm ( p = 0.564). NTZ was superior to placebo when considering SSD ( p < 0001), the mean time for hospital discharge (6.6 vs. 14 days, p = 0.021), and negative PCR at day 21 ( p = 0.035), whereas the placebo group presented more adverse events ( p = 0.04). Among adverse events likely related to the study drug, 14 were detected in the NTZ group and 22 in placebo ( p = 0.24). Among the 30 adverse events unlikely related, 21 occurred in the placebo group ( p = 0.04). A decrease from baseline was higher in the NTZ group for d -Dimer ( p = 0.001), US-RCP ( p < 0.002), TNF ( p < 0.038), IL-6 ( p < 0.001), IL-8 ( p = 0.014), HLA DR. on CD4 + T lymphocytes ( p < 0.05), CD38 in CD4 + and CD8 + T (both p < 0.05), and CD38 and HLA-DR. on CD4+ ( p < 0.01) Interpretation Compared to placebo in clinical and virologic outcomes and improvement of inflammatory outcomes, the superiority of NTZ warrants further investigation of this drug for moderate COVID-19 in larger clinical trials. A higher incidence of adverse events in the placebo arm might be attributed to COVID-19 related symptoms.

No abstract

Soeiro AM, Hovnanian ALD, Parra ER, Canzian M, Capelozzi VL. Post-mortem histological pulmonary analysis in patients with HIV/AIDS. Clinics. 2008;63:497-502. OBJECTIVES:Certain aspects of pulmonary pathology observed in autopsies of HIV/AIDS patients are still unknown. This study considers 250 autopsies of HIV/AIDS patients who died of acute respiratory failure and describes the demographic data, etiology, and histological pulmonary findings of the various pathologies. METHODS:The following data were obtained: age, sex, and major associated diseases (found at the autopsy). Pulmonary histopathology was categorized as: diffuse alveolar damage; pulmonary edema; alveolar hemorrhage; and acute interstitial pneumonia. Odds ratio of the HIV/AIDS-associated diseases developing a specific histopathological pattern was determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 197 men and 53 women were studied. The mean age was 36 years. Bacterial bronchopneumonia was present in 36% (91 cases) and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in 27% (68) of patients. Pulmonary histopathology showed acute interstitial pneumonia in 40% (99), diffuse alveolar damage in 36% (89), pulmonary edema in 13% (33), and alveolar hemorrhage in 12% (29) of patients. Multivariate analysis showed a significant and positive association between Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia and acute interstitial pneumonia (Odds ratio, 4.51; 95% CI, 2.46 -8.24; p < 0.001), severe sepsis and/or septic shock and diffuse alveolar damage (Odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.78 -7.27; p < 0.001), and cytomegalovirus and acute interstitial pneumonia (Odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.01 -4.93; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This report is the first autopsy study to include demographic data, etiologic diagnosis, and respective histopathological findings in patients with HIV/AIDS and acute respiratory failure. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the complete pulmonary physiopathological mechanism involved with each HIV/AIDS-associated disease.

Aims The diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) is challenging and requires integrated strategies. Transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is endorsed by guidelines as a first-line/triage tool allowing rapid bedside assessment of the aorta. However, the performance of FoCUS in the European Society of Cardiology-recommended workup of AASs awaits validation. Methods and results This was a prespecified subanalysis of the ADvISED multicentre prospective study. Patients with suspected AAS underwent FoCUS for detection of direct/indirect signs of AAS. Clinical probability assessment was performed with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). Case adjudication was based on advanced imaging, surgery, autopsy, or 14-day follow-up. An AAS was diagnosed in 146 (17.4%) of 839 patients. Presence of direct FoCUS signs had a sensitivity and specificity of 45.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37–53.6%] and 97.4% (95% CI 95.9–98.4%), while presence of any FoCUS sign had a sensitivity and specificity of 89% (95% CI 82.8–93.6%) and 74.5% (95% CI 71–77.7%) for AAS. The additive value of FoCUS was most evident within low clinical probability (ADD-RS ≤1). Herein, direct FoCUS signs were identified in 40 (4.8%) patients (P < 0.001), including 29 with AAS. ADD-RS ≤1 plus negative FoCUS for AAS rule-out had a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI 88.6–97.1%) and a failure rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9–3.6%). Addition of negative D-dimer led to a failure rate of 0% (95% CI 0–1.2%). Conclusion FoCUS has additive value in the workup of AASs. Direct FoCUS signs can rapidly identify patients requiring advanced imaging despite low clinical probability. In integrated bundles, negative FoCUS is useful for rule-out of AASs.