International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2025
Beyond the guidelines: original research on real-world outcomes of anticoagulation and corticosteroid in COVID-19.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leslie Alison, Chapman Scott A, Tessier Katelyn M, Tignanelli Christopher, Hozayen Sameh
Аннотация
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.
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.