IMPORTANCE Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.OBJECTIVE To 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.INTERVENTIONS Intermediate-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 ×10 3 /μL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS Among 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, −ϱ 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 RELEVANCE Among 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...

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.

Pemphigus vulgaris was the most frequent ABD according to our study; cases of PV outnumbered those of BP by a ratio of almost 8 : 1. This finding contrasts with those of studies conducted in Western European countries, in which BP predominates. There was a female predominance in most subtypes of ABD. Mean age at onset of PV and BP was lower than in Europe. In view of its large population of PV patients, Iran should be considered a suitable field for future clinical trials.

No abstract

Background: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. Methods: This manuscript reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]; 62 (50, 71) years; 237 (42.2%) women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate-dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, P=0.11). No significant differences were observed between the two groups for other efficacy outcomes, or in the landmark analysis from days 31-90. Overall, there were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24, P=0.33). Conclusion: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.

Background There is an ongoing controversy about harms and benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertensive patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the unresolved debate, we investigated the association of ARBs with in-hospital outcomes of these patients. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we studied patients with COVID-19 who referred to Sina Hospital in Tehran, Iran, from February 20 to May 29, 2020. Patients with either positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction test of swab specimens, or high clinical suspicion according to the World Health Organization's interim guidance were included. We followed-up patients for incurring death, severe COVID-19, and in-hospital complications. Results We evaluated 681 patients with COVID-19 of whom 37 patients were excluded due to incomplete medical records and 8 patients who used ACEIs which left 636 patients in the analysis. In this cohort, 108 (17.0%) patients expired and 407 (64.0%) patients incurred severe COVID-19. Of 254 (39.9%) patients with hypertension, 122 (48.0%) patients were receiving an ARB. After adjustment for possible confounders, we found no independent association between taking ARBs and in-hospital outcomes except for acute kidney injury (AKI), in patients with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19, either hypertensive or not-hypertensive. We found that discontinuation of ARBs during hospitalization was associated with a greater risk of mortality, invasive ventilation, and AKI (All P˂0.002). Conclusions We found that taking ARBs by patients with hypertension and confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 is not associated with poorer in-hospital outcomes after adjustment for possible confounders.

BackgroundCurrent evidence suggests that intravenous magnesium sulfate might be effective for reducing migraine pain. In a recent pilot study, we showed that intravenous caffeine citrate could reduce the severity of migraine headache. The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of intravenous caffeine citrate vs. magnesium sulfate for management of acute migraine headache.MethodsWe conducted a prospective quasi-experimental study from January until May 2016 in two educational medical centers of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Shoahadaye Tajrish Hospital and Imam Hossein Hospital), Tehran, Iran. The study included patients who were referred to the emergency department and met the migraine diagnosis criteria of the International Headache Society. Patients were allocated into 2 groups receiving either 60 mg intravenous caffeine or 2 g intravenous magnesium sulfate. The pain scores, based on the visual analog scale, were recorded on admission, as well as one and two hours after receiving the drug. A Chi-Square test and student t-test were used for analysis of baseline characteristics. A Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon singed rank test were used to analyze differences in the visual analogue scale (VAS) score between and within the groups respectively.ResultsIn total, 70 patients (35 patients in each group) with the mean age of 33.1 ± 11.3 years were included (64.3% female). For the Caffeine citrate group, the median pain score decreased from 9.0 (2.0) to 5.0 (4.0) after one hour and to 3.0 (4.0) after two hours. For the magnesium sulfate group, the pain score decreased from 8.0 (2.0) to 2.0 (2.0) after one hour and to 0.0 (1.0) after two hours. Both intravenous caffeine citrate and intravenous magnesium sulfate reduced pain scores significantly but the magnesium sulfate group showed more improvement than the Caffeine citrate group after one hour (P < 0.001) and after two hours (P < 0.001).ConclusionsIt is likely that both intravenous caffeine and intravenous magnesium sulfate can reduce the severity of migraine headache. Moreover, intravenous magnesium sulfate at a dose of 2 g might be superior to intravenous caffeine citrate 60 mg for the short term management of migraine headache in emergency departments.

No abstract