Aims: Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale that warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential in patients with COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus' entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis. Methods: The INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP) metatrial is a prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are being conducted in multiple countries. Participating studies randomise adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome for the metatrial is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have additional outcomes.Analysis: We use a Bayesian approach to monitoring, followed by analysing individual patient data, outcomes and adverse events. All analyses will follow the intention-to-PI Statement: The authors confirm that the PI for this paper is Professor Frank M.P. van Haren and that he has direct responsibility for the described metatrial. Metatrial Combined Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan date and version: 14 December 2020, INHALE-HEP metatrial version 2.0.

No abstract

Aims: To determine the safety and efficacy-potential of inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.Methods: Retrospective, uncontrolled multicentre single-arm case series of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, treated with inhaled nebulised UFH (5000 IU q8h, 10 000 IU q4h, or 25 000 IU q6h) for 6 ± 3 (mean ± standard deviation) days. Outcomes were activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) before treatment (baseline) and highest-level during treatment (peak), and adverse events including bleeding. Exploratory efficacy outcomes were oxygenation, assessed by ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) and FiO 2 , and the World Health Organisation modified ordinal clinical scale.Results: There were 98 patients included. In patients on stable prophylactic or therapeutic systemic anticoagulant therapy but not receiving therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels increased from baseline of 34 ± 10 seconds to a peak of 38 ± 11 seconds (P < .0001). In 3 patients on therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels did not significantly increase from baseline of 72 ± 20 to a peak of 84 ± 28 seconds (P = .17). Two patients had serious adverse events: bleeding gastric ulcer requiring transfusion and thigh haematoma; both were on therapeutic anticoagulation. Minor bleeding occurred in 16 patients, 13 of whom were on therapeutic anticoagulation.The oxygen saturation/FiO 2 ratio and the FiO 2 worsened before and improved after commencement of inhaled UFH (change in slope, P < .001). Conclusion:Inhaled nebulised UFH in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was safe.Although statistically significant, inhaled nebulised UFH did not produce a clinically relevant increase in APTT (peak values in the normal range). Urgent randomisedThe authors confirm that the PI for this paper is Professor Frank M.P. van Haren and that he has direct responsibility for the described case-series.

BackgroundVenous thromboembolic disease (VTE) is associated with high morbi-mortality. Adherence rate to the recommendations of antithrombotic prophylaxis guidelines (ATPG) is suboptimal. The aim of this study was to describe the adequacy of antithrombotic prophylaxis (ATP) in hospitalized patients as the initial stage of a program designed to improve physician adherence to –ATP recommendations in Argentina.MethodsThis study was a multicenter, cross-sectional study that included 28 Institutions throughout 5 provinces in Argentina.Results1315 patients were included, 729 (55.4%) were hospitalized for medical (clinical) reasons, and 586 (44.6%) for surgical reasons. Adequate ATP was provided to 66.9% of the patients and was more frequent in surgical (71%) compared to clinical (63.6%) subjects (p < 0.001). Inadequate ATP resulted from underuse in 76.6% of the patients. Among clinical, 203 (16%) had increased bleeding risk and mechanical ATP was used infrequently.ConclusionsThe adequacy of ATP was better in low VTE risk clinical and surgical patients and high VTE risk in orthopedic patients. There was worse adequacy in high risk patients (with active neoplasm) and in those with pharmacological ATP contraindications, in which the use of mechanical methods was scarce. The adequacy of ATP was greater at institutions with < 150 beds compared with larger institutions. This is the first multicentric study reporting ATP in Argentina. Understanding local characteristics of medical performance within our territory is the first step in order to develop measures for improving ATP in our environment.

No abstract