No abstract

The sensitivity of LUS in the detection of ILD supports its use as a screening test for ILD in RA patients, even in the ambulatory setting with a PS-USD. The strong correlation between echographic and HRCT scores indicates LUS is a valid tool for grading and follow-up of ILD.

Background It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards Methods This is a multicentre, open‐label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID‐19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in‐hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Results The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5–11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. Conclusions No DVT developed in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

Background COVID‐19 patients are considered at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The real nature of pulmonary artery occlusions (PAO) in COVID‐19 has been questioned, suggesting that it is caused also by in situ thrombi, rather than only by emboli (PE) from peripheral thrombi. Methods We searched MEDLINE for studies published until 6 June 2020 that included COVID‐19 patients or non‐COVID‐19 medical patients at VTE risk, treated with heparins, in whom VTE (PE and deep vein thrombosis, DVT) had been reported. Systematic review and results reporting were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were independently extracted by two observers, and estimates were pooled using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Results We identified 17 studies including 3224 COVID‐19 patients and 7 including 11 985 non‐COVID‐19 patients. Two analyses were performed: in all COVID‐19 patients and only in those (n = 515) who, like non‐COVID‐19 patients, were screened systematically for DVT. The latter analysis revealed that the prevalence of DVT was 15.43% (95%CI, 4.08‐31.77) in COVID‐19 and 4.21% (2.27‐6.68) in non‐COVID‐19 patients (P = .0482). The prevalence of PE was 4.85% (40.33‐13.01) in COVID‐19 patients and 0.22% (0.03‐0.55) in non‐COVID‐19 patients (P = .0128). The percentage of PE among VTE events was 22.15% (5.31‐44.60) in COVID‐19 and 6.39% (3.17‐10.41) in non‐COVID‐19 patients (P = .0482). Differences were even more marked when all COVID‐19 patients were analysed. Conclusions The results of our meta‐analysis highlight a disproportion in the prevalence of PE among all VTE events in COVID 19 patients, likely reflecting PAO by pulmonary thrombi, rather than emboli from peripheral vein thrombi.