No abstract

Tremblay and colleagues asked whether patients receiving either routine anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy for existing conditions prior to becoming ill with COVID-19 have different outcomes from patients receiving neither therapy. After matching for existing comorbidities, this retrospective observational study finds no evidence for an effect of prediagnosis anticoagulation on mortality.

No abstract

Observational data suggest an acquired prothrombotic state may contribute to the pathophysiology of COVID-19. These data include elevated D-dimers observed among many COVID-19 patients. We present a retrospective analysis of admission D-dimer, and D-dimer trends, among 1065 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients, across 6 New York Hospitals. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were intubation and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Three-hundred-thirteen patients (29.4%) died, 319 (30.0%) required intubation, and 30 (2.8%) had diagnosed VTE. Using Cox proportional-hazard modeling, each 1 μg/ml increase in admission D-dimer level was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.06 (95%CI 1.04–1.08, p < 0.0001) for death, 1.08 (95%CI 1.06–1.10, p < 0.0001) for intubation, and 1.08 (95%CI 1.03–1.13, p = 0.0087) for VTE. Time-dependent receiver-operator-curves for admission D-dimer as a predictor of death, intubation, and VTE yielded areas-under-the-curve of 0.694, 0.621, and 0.565 respectively. Joint-latent-class-modeling identified distinct groups of patients with respect to D-dimer trend. Patients with stable D-dimer trajectories had HRs of 0.29 (95%CI 0.17–0.49, p < 0.0001) and 0.22 (95%CI 0.10–0.45, p = 0.0001) relative to those with increasing D-dimer trajectories, for the outcomes death and intubation respectively. Patients with low-increasing D-dimer trajectories had a multivariable HR for VTE of 0.18 (95%CI 0.05–0.68, p = 0.0117) relative to those with high-decreasing D-dimer trajectories. Time-dependent receiver-operator-curves for D-dimer trend as a predictor of death, intubation, and VTE yielded areas-under-the-curve of 0.678, 0.699, and 0.722 respectively. Although admission D-dimer levels, and D-dimer trends, are associated with outcomes in COVID-19, they have limited performance characteristics as prognostic tests.

Background: Patients with malignancy are particularly vulnerable to infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Disease-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their immunodeficiency secondary to their underlying disease and cancer-directed therapy. We report a case series of patients with cancer who received convalescent plasma, an investigational therapy for severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with cancer were identified who received convalescent plasma. Enrolled patients had confirmed COVID-19 with severe or life-threatening disease and were transfused with convalescent plasma from donors with a SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody titer of ≥ 1:320 dilution. Oxygen requirements and clinical outcomes of interests were captured as well as laboratory parameters at baseline and 3 days after treatment. Results: We identified 24 patients with cancer, 14 of whom had a hematological malignancy, who were treated with convalescent plasma. Fifteen patients (62.5%) were on cancer-directed treatment at the time of COVID-19 infection. After a median of hospital duration of 9 days, 13 patients (54.2%) had been discharged home, 1 patient (4.2%) was still hospitalized, and 10 patients had died (41.7%). Non-intubated patients, particularly those on nasal cannula alone, had favorable outcomes. Three mild febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions were observed. C-reactive protein significantly decreased after 3 days of treatment, while other laboratory parameters including ferritin and D-dimer remained unchanged. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma may be a promising therapy in cancer patients with COVID-19.

No abstract

VPA plays a complex role in patients with pigmentary retinal dystrophies and may be associated with VA and field decline as well as adverse side effects. Physicians should use caution with using VPA for pigmentary retinal dystrophies.

No abstract