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: 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.

A critical point for better management of COVID-19 is: knowing more about exact pathomechanisms of events in different organs during disease course and COVID-related histopathological events like tissue sampling, either biopsy or necropsy/autopsy of died people, collecting from different populations. →What this article adds:In lung necropsy of 15 Iranian patients, we found similar presentation of histopathologic events compared with previous similar studiers: A high percentage of anthracosis and viral cytopathic effects, and a lower percentage of microthrombotic vascular lung injuries, suggesting some probable differences in pathologic events among different populations.

We have assessed the value of single fiber reflectance (SFR) spectroscopy in prediction of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL). SFR was used to measure reflected light from 32 patients undergoing standard colposcopy. Seven parameters extracted from the spectra in addition to two biographic parameters were compared in biopsy-confirmed SIL versus nonSIL. The significant parameters in the model were determined using stepwise logistic regression. The classification performance was evaluated by a leave-one-out cross-validation method and reported by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Light absorption properties and biographic characteristics of the patient contributed significantly to the accuracy of the model. Combining important parameters, the best retrospective sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve for SIL sites versus nonSIL were 89%, 80% and 0.89%, respectively. SFR spectroscopy shows promise as a noninvasive, real-time method to guide the clinician in reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Discrimination of SIL from other abnormalities compares favorably with that obtained by fluorescence alone and by fluorescence combined with reflectance spectroscopy while the simplicity and low cost of the presented system are dominant.