Fareed, Jawed

Significant progress has been made in treating Coronavirus disease (COVID) – an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). An ominous turn in the pandemic is the evolving public health crisis emanating from persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated long-term impact. Long COVID or post–COVID syndrome describes protean symptoms that persist at least 3 months after the onset of acute illness and last for at least 2 months in individuals with a history of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Long COVID has become a public health concern. Millions of infected individuals are now facing chronic multi-organ failures, including neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and kidney complications. In general, the cause of long COVID syndrome is unclear but factors such as prolonged activation of immune responses, and viral persistence triggering transcription dysregulation of genes associated with normal thrombotic disease may play a role in cardiovascular complications. Although inflammatory biomarkers are reported in other disorders, it remains unclear whether similar biomarkers are associated with cardiovascular manifestations following COVID. Medications such as sulodexide directed at glycocalyx and coagulation have demonstrated benefits for long COVID in smaller studies. Here, we describe the outcomes of the symposium on the underlying cardiovascular mechanisms of the long COVID.

AbstractCOVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH.

Abstract Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a cardiovascular syndrome which can lead to embolic stroke. Several AF clinical trials have shown a decrease risk of stroke with anticoagulation using warfarin. Currently, there are two approaches for anticoagulation in AF patients. For outpatients, warfarin is used with an INR goal 2.0–3.0. For inpatients requiring cardioversion, unfractionated heparin (UFH, IV) is used as a bridge to therapeutic warfarin. More recently, anticoagulation with a low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, has been reported to give a more predictable anticoagulant response than UFH in TEEguided cardioversion. The present study compares the markers of inflammation and thrombin generation in patients included in the ACUTE II study. Methods: This was a randomized multicenter trial of 155 patients from 17 clinical sites, the anticoagulant activity of LMWH (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg sc bid, Sanofi-Aventis, n=76) was compared to that of UFH (APTT 1.5 – 2.5 x control, n=79). Blood samples were drawn at enrollment (baseline), day 2 (peri cardioversion) and day 4 in both groups. Day 2 and day 4 samples were taken 3–4 hours after the injection of LMWH in patients in the LMWH group. Blood samples were evaluated for inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), CD 40 ligand (CD 40L), monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1) and anticoagulant effect: thrombin antithrombin complex (TAT) and prothrombin fragment (F 1.2). Results: The APTT and anti-Xa levels indicated therapeutic anticoagulation was achieved (previously reported). In addition, both TAT and F1.2 levels were increased at baseline and were significantly decreased with LMWH (p<0.01) in comparison to UFH. The CRP, CD40L, MCP-1 were decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. These results suggest that AF patients treated with LMWH demonstrate a stronger anticoagulant effect as measured by a significant reduction in the markers of thrombin generation. Furthermore, anticoagulation with either UFH of LMWH results in a decrease in inflammation which was not different between groups. Conclusion: In the ACUTE II trial, anticoagulation with LMWH in AF patients may be a better alternate than UFH during TEE-guided cardioversion due to a a stronger anticoagulant.

Background: Thromboembolism (TE) is one of major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy. Pathophysiological connection between TE and inflammation has been established and it is being thoroughly studied recently. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) are biomarkers for systemic inflammation and might represent a yet unrecognized risk factor for development of venous thromboembolism in lymphoma patients having in mind chronic inflammatory milieu specific for lymphomas. Aims: We aimed to investigate the association between NLR, PLR and future risk of TE, in a prospective cohort of lymphoma patients receiving chemotherapy. Methods: We prospectively included 630 patients with B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma /indolent and agressive/, T cell non Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma who were diagnosed and treated (period 2014-2019.) at the Clinic for Hematology, Clinical Center of Serbia. Data for newly diagnosed patients, who had completed a minimum of one chemotherapy cycle, were collected for venous TE events from time of diagnosis to 3 months after the last cycle of therapy. NLR and PLR were calculated according to the CBC with differential count. TE complications were diagnosed based on clinical examination, laboratory evaluation and radiographic studies (duplex venous ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)). Response to therapy was assessed according to Cheson criteria. Logistic regression analysis and ROC curve were performed to assess the association of NLR and PLR with TE and therapy response. Cox regression and Kaplan Meier analysis were used to assess overall survival. Results: The mean age in our group of patients was 53 years (range, 18-89 years) while 52.8% were males. Most patients had advanced stage disease: clinical stage III 20.6% and stage IV, 41.5%. A total of 327 patients (51.9%) had aggressive NHL; 175 (27.8%) had indolent NHL; 102 (16.2%) had HL; 26 (4.1%) had T cell NHL. 51 (8.2%) patients developed thromboembolic events. NLR and PLR were significantly higher in TE patients compared to patients without TE (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). The NLR was positively associated with PLR (p<0.001). A positive NLR was considered 3 or higher, while a positive PLR was a ratio of 10 or more. The ROC curve analysis demonstrated acceptable specificity and sensitivity of NLR and PLR in predicting TE. NLR and PLR were found to be prognostic factors for the TE (relative risk [RR] = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6-5.3, p=0.001 and RR=2.7, 95% CI =1.4-5.1, p=0.002, respectively) as well as for overall response to therapy (RR=2.7, 95%CI=1.7-5.7, p<0.001 and RR=2.0, 95%CI=1.1-3.4, p=0.015, respectively). Regarding the overall survival, in univariate analysis there was an association of the development of TE and decreased survival, while in multivariate model NLR was found to be an independent risk factor for overall survival in lymphoma patients (HR=1.8, 95%CI=1.1-2.9, p=0.024) (Figure 1). Summary/Conclusion: NLR could represent useful clinical predictor of TE complications in patients with lymphoma without additional costs to the national health systems. Our research showed that NLR is also predictive for response to therapy and overall survival of lymphoma patients. Simplicity, cost effectiveness, and rapid turn around qualify this new tool for routine prognostic assessment in lymphoma patients. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.