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.

A safety signal for ACEIs, ARBs, and TZs and BCC and SCC, as well as for TZs and MM, was detected. An increased awareness and education, especially for those who are at high risk for skin cancer, are warranted for patients and healthcare providers. Further exploration of such associations for these commonly used drug classes is warranted.

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.

BackgroundMuscle wasting can be accelerated by chronic diseases such as heart failure and is one of the major causes of disability, morbidity, and mortality in this population. We aimed to investigate the incidence of muscle wasting and its associated factors in dilated cardiomyopathy patients younger than 55 years of age.MethodsBetween April 2014 and December 2015, all symptomatic patients with a diagnosis of non‐ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy who were referred to heart failure clinic were included in our study.Dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry was used to evaluate body composition and identify muscle wasting. Muscle mass was calculated as the ratio of an individual's total lean mass of legs and arms (also called appendicular skeletal muscle) to their squared height (kg/m2). The muscle mass values of less than 5.45 kg/m2 for women and 7.26 kg/m2 for men were considered low.ResultsA total of 55 patients (32 male) were included. The mean (standard deviation) of age was 37.3 (10.1) years, and the mean of left ventricular ejection fraction was 21.4%. Most of the patients were in the New York Heart Association classes of II and II–III. Twenty‐six patients (47.3%) met criteria for muscle wasting. Patients with muscle wasting had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower 6‐min walk distance, and higher New York Heart Association function class and hospitalization rate.ConclusionsWe concluded that muscle wasting might be present in younger patients with heart failure, particularly in those who are in worse clinical condition.