Summary Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) can be complicated with coagulopathy, namely disseminated intravascular coagulation, which has a rather prothrombotic character with high risk of venous thromboembolism. The incidence of venous thromboembolism among COVID‐19 patients in intensive care units appears to be somewhat higher compared to that reported in other studies including such patients with other disease conditions. D‐dimer might help in early recognition of these high‐risk patients and also predict outcome. Preliminary data show that in patients with severe COVID‐19, anticoagulant therapy appears to be associated with lower mortality in the subpopulation meeting sepsis‐induced coagulopathy criteria or with markedly elevated d‐dimer. Recent recommendations suggest that all hospitalized COVID‐19 patients should receive thromboprophylaxis, or full therapeutic‐intensity anticoagulation if such an indication is present.

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). This study performed a systematic review in PubMed/EMBASE of studies reporting the prevalence of VTE in patients with COVID-19 who were totally screened/assessed for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or for pulmonary embolism (PE). Among 47 candidate studies ( n = 6459; 33 in Europe), 17 studies ( n = 3973; weighted age 63.0 years, males 60%, intensive care unit (ICU) 16%) reported the prevalence of PE with a pooled estimate of 32% (95% CI: 25, 40%), and 32 studies ( n = 2552; weighted age 62.6 years, males 57%, ICU 49%) reported the prevalence of DVT with a pooled estimate of 27% (95% CI: 21, 34%). A total of 36 studies reported the use of at least prophylactic antithrombotic treatment in the majority of their patients. Meta-regression analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE was higher across studies with a higher percentage of ICU patients and higher study population mean D-dimer values, and lower in studies with mixed dosing of anticoagulation in ⩾ 50% of the population compared to studies with standard prophylactic dosing of anticoagulation in < 50% of the population. The pooled odds ratio for death in patients with COVID-19 and VTE versus those without VTE (17 studies, n = 2882) was 2.1 (95% CI: 1.2, 3.6). Hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 are at high VTE risk despite prophylactic anticoagulation. Further research should investigate the individualized VTE risk of patients with COVID-19 and the optimal preventive antithrombotic therapy. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42020185543.

PurposeThe aim of this systematic review was to find best teaching strategies for teaching evidence-based practice (EBP) to undergraduate health students that have been adopted over the last years in healthcare institutions worldwide.MethodsThe authors carried out a systematic, comprehensive bibliographic search using Medline database for the years 2005 to March 2015 (updated in March 2016). Search terms used were chosen from the USNLM Institutes of Health list of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and free text key terms were used as well. Selected articles were measured based on the inclusion criteria of this study and initially compared in terms of titles or abstracts. Finally, articles relevant to the subject of this review were retrieved in full text. Critical appraisal was done to determine the effects of strategy of teaching evidence-based medicine (EBM).ResultsTwenty articles were included in the review. The majority of the studies sampled medical students (n=13) and only few conducted among nursing (n=2), pharmacy (n=2), physiotherapy/therapy (n=1), dentistry (n=1), or mixed disciplines (n=1) students. Studies evaluated a variety of educational interventions of varying duration, frequency and format (lectures, tutorials, workshops, conferences, journal clubs, and online sessions), or combination of these to teach EBP. We categorized interventions into single interventions covering a workshop, conference, lecture, journal club, or e-learning and multifaceted interventions where a combination of strategies had been assessed. Seven studies reported an overall increase to all EBP domains indicating a higher EBP competence and two studies focused on the searching databases skill.ConclusionFollowings were deduced from above analysis: multifaceted approach may be best suited when teaching EBM to health students; the use of technology to promote EBP through mobile devices, simulation, and the web is on the rise; and the duration of the interventions varying form some hours to even months was not related to the students’ EBP competence.

The findings suggest that mutations in the promoter region of the thrombomodulin gene may constitute a risk for arterial thrombosis.

Several novel cuffless wearable devices and smartphone applications claiming that they can measure blood pressure (BP) are appearing on the market. These technologies are very attractive and promising, with increasing interest among health care professionals for their potential use. Moreover, they are becoming popular among patients with hypertension and healthy people. However, at the present time, there are serious issues about BP measurement accuracy of cuffless devices and the 2021 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines on BP measurement do not recommend them for clinical use. Cuffless devices have special validation issues, which have been recently recognized. It is important to note that the 2018 Universal Standard for the validation of automated BP measurement devices developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, the European Society of Hypertension, and the International Organization for Standardization is inappropriate for the validation of cuffless devices. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of publications presenting data on the accuracy of novel cuffless BP measurement devices, with inadequate methodology and potentially misleading conclusions. The objective of this review is to facilitate understanding of the capabilities and limitations of emerging cuffless BP measurement devices. First, the potential and the types of these devices are described. Then, the unique challenges in evaluating the BP measurement accuracy of cuffless devices are explained. Studies from the literature and computer simulations are employed to illustrate these challenges. Finally, proposals are given on how to evaluate cuffless devices including presenting and interpreting relevant study results.

Background:Many cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices are currently on the market claiming that they provide accurate BP measurements. These technologies have considerable potential to improve the awareness, treatment, and management of hypertension. However, recent guidelines by the European Society of Hypertension do not recommend cuffless devices for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.Objective:This statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability presents the types of cuffless BP technologies, issues in their validation, and recommendations for clinical practice.Statements:Cuffless BP monitors constitute a wide and heterogeneous group of novel technologies and devices with different intended uses. Cuffless BP devices have specific accuracy issues, which render the established validation protocols for cuff BP devices inadequate for their validation. In 2014, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a standard for the validation of cuffless BP devices, and the International Organization for Standardization is currently developing another standard. The validation of cuffless devices should address issues related to the need of individual cuff calibration, the stability of measurements post calibration, the ability to track BP changes, and the implementation of machine learning technology. Clinical field investigations may also be considered and issues regarding the clinical implementation of cuffless BP readings should be investigated.Conclusion:Cuffless BP devices have considerable potential for changing the diagnosis and management of hypertension. However, fundamental questions regarding their accuracy, performance, and implementation need to be carefully addressed before they can be recommended for clinical use.

Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.