Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. Design Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. Setting 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. Participants 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). Interventions Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m 2 . At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). Conclusions In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085 .

Background: Awake prone positioning has been widely used in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure to avoid intubation despite limited evidence. Our objective was to evaluate if prone positioning is associated with a reduced intubation rate when compared to usual care. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in the emergency department of a large quaternary hospital in Sao Paulo. We retrieved data from all admitted patients in need of oxygen supplementation (>3 L/min) and tachypnea (>24 ipm) from March 1 to April 30, 2020, excluding those who had any contraindication to the prone position or who had an immediate need for intubation. The primary endpoint was endotracheal intubation up to 15 days. Secondary outcomes included a 6-point clinical outcome ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation-free days, admission to the intensive care unit, and need of hemodialysis and of vasoactive drugs, all assessed at or up to 15 days. We analyzed unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates with Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression, quantile regression, and sensitivity analyses using propensity score models. Results: Of 925 suspected COVID-19 patients admitted off mechanical ventilation, 166 patients fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria: 57 were exposed to prone positioning and 109 to usual care. In the intervention group, 33 (58%) were intubated versus 53 (49%) in the control group. We observed no difference in intubation rates in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 1.88, p = 0.39) nor in the adjusted analysis (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.49, p = 0.69). Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses.

Background A local increase in angiotensin 2 after inactivation of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 by SARS-CoV-2 may induce a redox imbalance in alveolar epithelium cells, causing apoptosis, increased inflammation and, consequently, impaired gas exchange. We hypothesized that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) administration could restore this redox homeostasis and suppress unfavorable evolution in Covid-19 patients. Objective To determine whether NAC in high doses can avoid respiratory failure in patients with Covid-19. Methods It was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, unicentric trial, conducted at the Emergency Department of Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil. We enrolled 135 patients with severe Covid-19 (confirmed or suspected), with an oxyhemoglobin saturation of less than 94% or respiratory rate higher than 24 breaths/min. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 21 g (approximately 300 mg/kg) for 20 hours, or dextrose 5%. Primary endpoint was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints were time of mechanical ventilation, admission to ICU, time in ICU, and mortality. Results Baseline characteristics were very similar in the two groups, with no significant difference in age, sex, comorbidities, medicines taken, and disease severity. Also, groups were similar in laboratory tests and chest CT scan findings. Sixteen patients (23.9%) in the Placebo group were submitted to endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, compared to 14 patients (20.6%) in the NAC group (p=0.675). No difference was observed in secondary endpoints. Conclusion Administration of NAC in high doses did not affect the evolution of severe Covid-19.

Background Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID‐19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID‐19. We did a systematic review and meta‐analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect meta‐analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs). Results and Conclusions There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all‐cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57‐1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45‐0.77). Organ support‐free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07‐1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment‐by‐subgroup interactions with illness severity for all‐cause death ( P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID‐19.

BackgroundHeparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death.MethodsWe randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.ResultsAt 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85).ConclusionsIn moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days.Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085; NCT04444700