Beyond the guidelines: original research on real-world outcomes of anticoagulation and corticosteroid in COVID-19

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES International Journal of Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2025.107834
Alison Leslie , Scott A. Chapman , Katelyn M. Tessier , Christopher Tignanelli , Sameh Hozayen
{"title":"Beyond the guidelines: original research on real-world outcomes of anticoagulation and corticosteroid in COVID-19","authors":"Alison Leslie ,&nbsp;Scott A. Chapman ,&nbsp;Katelyn M. Tessier ,&nbsp;Christopher Tignanelli ,&nbsp;Sameh Hozayen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijid.2025.107834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread use of anticoagulation (AC) and corticosteroids (CCS) for hospitalized patients, but real-world outcomes may differ from clinical trial findings due to diverse patient populations and treatment variability.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the real-world impact of AC and CCS therapies on key clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Multicenter, retrospective observational cohort study conducted across 11 hospitals in a Midwest health system.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>The study included 4754 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with AC, CCS, both (AC+CCS), or neither. The 'neither' group served as the reference for comparisons.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Interventions included administration of AC, CCS, both AC+CCS, or no intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Main Measures</h3><div>Primary outcomes included thromboembolism (TE), bleeding events, ICU admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and in-hospital mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Key Results</h3><div>Compared to the reference group, the AC+CCS group had significantly lower odds of TE (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87) and bleeding events (aOR 0.15 95% CI (0.08, 0.27)). The AC-only group demonstrated the lowest ICU admission, IMV, and mortality rates (aHR 0.30 95% CI (0.17, 0.53)). The CCS-only group had the highest rates of adverse outcomes, likely reflecting greater baseline illness severity.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, showing that real-world outcomes of AC and CCS can differ significantly from controlled trials. These findings provide crucial insights for adapting clinical guidelines to diverse patient settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14006,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":"153 ","pages":"Article 107834"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971225000578","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread use of anticoagulation (AC) and corticosteroids (CCS) for hospitalized patients, but real-world outcomes may differ from clinical trial findings due to diverse patient populations and treatment variability.

Objective

To evaluate the real-world impact of AC and CCS therapies on key clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Design

Multicenter, retrospective observational cohort study conducted across 11 hospitals in a Midwest health system.

Participants

The study included 4754 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with AC, CCS, both (AC+CCS), or neither. The 'neither' group served as the reference for comparisons.

Interventions

Interventions included administration of AC, CCS, both AC+CCS, or no intervention.

Main Measures

Primary outcomes included thromboembolism (TE), bleeding events, ICU admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and in-hospital mortality.

Key Results

Compared to the reference group, the AC+CCS group had significantly lower odds of TE (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87) and bleeding events (aOR 0.15 95% CI (0.08, 0.27)). The AC-only group demonstrated the lowest ICU admission, IMV, and mortality rates (aHR 0.30 95% CI (0.17, 0.53)). The CCS-only group had the highest rates of adverse outcomes, likely reflecting greater baseline illness severity.

Conclusions

This study emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, showing that real-world outcomes of AC and CCS can differ significantly from controlled trials. These findings provide crucial insights for adapting clinical guidelines to diverse patient settings.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
指南之外:COVID-19患者抗凝血和皮质类固醇治疗实际结果的原始研究。
背景:COVID-19大流行导致住院患者广泛使用抗凝(AC)和皮质类固醇(CCS),但由于患者群体和治疗方法的多样性,现实世界的结果可能与临床试验结果不同。目的:评价AC和CCS治疗对COVID-19住院患者关键临床结局的现实影响。设计:多中心、回顾性观察队列研究,横跨中西部11家医院进行。参与者:该研究包括4754名接受AC、CCS、两者(AC+CCS)或两者都不接受治疗的住院COVID-19患者。“两者都不是”的组作为对照。干预措施:干预措施包括AC、CCS、AC+CCS或不干预。主要指标:主要结局包括血栓栓塞(TE)、出血事件、ICU入院、有创机械通气(IMV)和住院死亡率。关键结果:与对照组相比,AC+CCS组TE发生率(aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87)和出血事件发生率(aOR 0.15 95% CI(0.08, 0.27))显著降低。仅ac组ICU入院率、IMV和死亡率最低(aHR 0.30, 95% CI(0.17, 0.53))。仅ccs组的不良结果发生率最高,可能反映了更高的基线疾病严重程度。结论:本研究强调了COVID-19住院患者个性化治疗策略的重要性,表明AC和CCS的实际结果可能与对照试验有显著差异。这些发现为使临床指南适应不同的患者环境提供了重要的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
1020
审稿时长
30 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) Publisher: International Society for Infectious Diseases Publication Frequency: Monthly Type: Peer-reviewed, Open Access Scope: Publishes original clinical and laboratory-based research. Reports clinical trials, reviews, and some case reports. Focuses on epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and control of infectious diseases. Emphasizes diseases common in under-resourced countries.
期刊最新文献
Long-Term Immunity and IgG Subclass Response Following Hepatitis E Vaccination: A Longitudinal Cohort Study in Matlab, Bangladesh. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bivalent Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F (RSVpreF) Maternal Vaccine for the Prevention of RSV Illness Among Infants in Hong Kong. Microbiological Landscape in Critical Care: 14-Year Analysis of 42,722 ICU Patients Using MIMIC-IV Database. An unexpected pathogen: Gardnerella vaginalis ventilator-associated pneumonia in severe burn patients. Seasonal Dynamics of Influenza and RSV in the Caribbean: A Call for Regionally Tailored Preventive Measures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1