Introduction: Real-world safety studies can provide important evidence on the thromboembolic risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines, considering that millions of people have been already vaccinated against COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to estimate the incidence of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and to compare the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine with other COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: We conducted a retrospective real-world safety study using data from two different data sources: the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza, RNF) and the Campania Region Health system (Sistema INFOrmativo saNità CampanIA, SINFONIA). From the start date of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (December 27th, 2021) to September 27th, 2022, information on COVID-19 vaccinations and thromboembolic evets were extracted from the two databases. The reporting rate (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of thromboembolic events for 10,000 doses was calculated for each COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the odds of being vaccinated with the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine vs. the other COVID-19 vaccines in cases with thromboembolic events vs. controls without thromboembolic events were computed. Results: A total of 12,692,852 vaccine doses were administered in Campania Region, of which 6,509,475 (51.28%) were in female and mostly related to the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Moderna (24.31%), Oxford–AstraZeneca (9.71%), Janssen (0.91%), and Novavax (0.02%) vaccines. A total of 641 ICSRs with a COVID-19 vaccines and a vascular events were retrieved from the RNF for the Campania Region, of which 453 (70.67%) were in female. Most ICSRs reported the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Oxford–AstraZeneca (9.71%), Moderna (24.31%), and Janssen (0.91%). A total of 2,451 events were reported in the ICSRs (3.8 events for ICSRs) of which 292 were thromboembolic events. The highe RRs of thromboembolic events were found with the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine (RR: 4.62, 95%CI: 3.50-5.99) and Janssen vaccine (RR: 3.45, 95%CI: 0.94-8.82). Thromboembolic events were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine compared to Pfizer-BioNtech (OR: 6.06; 95%CI: 4.22-8.68) and Moderna vaccines (OR: 6.46; 95%CI: 4.00-10.80). Conclusion: We observed a higher reporting of thromboembolic events with viral-vector based vaccines (Oxford–AstraZeneca and Janssen) and an increased likelihood of being exposed to the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna) among thromboembolic cases.

Rhabdomyolysis is a serious clinical condition, which if left untreated can lead to kidney failure and in extreme cases, to death. It has also been reported in association with SARS COV2 infection and can be its initial presentation. COVID-19 is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2), which has many variants that change the characteristics of the disease affecting, among other things, the method of transmission or treatment. Some investigators have implicated excessive immune response in the causes of muscle damage during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Others point to direct damage caused by the virus or involving immune factors. In this study we described cases of COVID-19 infection from 1 June 2022 to 15 July 2022 with elevated muscle enzymes in the blood and hospitalized to the first division of Cotugno hospital in Campania. Of 39 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 15 patients presented also rhabdomyolysis. The most common symptoms were: asthenia, fever, arthomyalgia, lipothymia and syncope. No patient had myocardial infarction and 2 patients had atrial fibrillation. All patients were affected by omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. Of these patients: 4 patients died (2 due to rhabdomyolysis and 2 due to sepsis) and only one patient presented acute kidney injury.

Background: Sepsis still represents a major public health issue worldwide, and immune system plays a main role during infections and therefore its activity is mandatory to resolve this clinical condition In this report we aimed to retrospectively verify in real life setting the possible usefulness of Pentameric IgM plus antibiotic in recovering patients with sepsis after major abdominal surgery Materials/methods: We reviewed, from January 2013 until December 2018, all adult patients admitted in ICU for Sepsis or Septic shock (2) after major abdominal surgery. Among these patients, were identified those that according to legal indication and licence in Italy, were treated with Pentameric IgM plus antibiotic (Group A) or with antibiotic alone (Group B). We analysed the following parameters were evaluated: Blood gas analysis, Lactate, CRP, Procalcitonin, Endotoxin activity, Liver and Renal Function, Coagulation, Blood Cell count at different time points (Every 48 hrs for at least 7 days. Differences between groups have been analysed by Fisher’s exact test or Chi square test for categorical variables. Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal–Wallis test have instead been performed to compare continuous variables. Univariate and Multivariate analysis were also performed Results: Over a period of 30 months 24 patients were enrolled in Group A and 20 patients in Group B. In those subjects no statistical differences have been found in terms of bacterial or fungal infection isolates, when detected in a blood culture test, or in inflammatory index, SOFA score, lactate levels and mortality rate. A 48hrs response was statistically more frequent in Group B than in Group A, while no differences were found in the other clinical and laboratory evaluation. Conclusions: Based on our results, the use of pentameric IgM do not seem to give any clinical advantage in sepsis after to major abdominal surgery.

Background: After the outbreak of a novel coronavirus (i.e. SARS COV2) in China and its diffusion around the world, great attentions was reserved to the increased incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients. A specific antiviral action of heparins toward SARS COV2 has been reported in vitro such as a well know action of heparins to prevent VTE in inpatients with infective disease has already been reported since several years. Yet, because fondaparinux represent the pharmacological antithrombotic active sequence of all heparins and because its clinical indication o prevent VTE in inpatients is similar to heprains, we realized a retrospective analysis in inpatients with SARS COV2 on the incidence of VTE during pharmacological prophylaxis with enoxaparin or fondaparinux. This retrospective analysis was named FONDENOXAVID. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that used patients with SARS COV2 during the Italian outbreak from February 18, 2020 to April 30, 2020. Our aim was to compare the clinical characteristics, prophylactic treatment and outcomes in inpatients positive to SARS COV2 at risk to develop venous thromboembolism, in particular venous thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism, during in-hospital primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin (40 mg or 60 mg once daily) or fondaparinux (2.5 mg once daily). Statistical analysis was conducted with using MatLab R2016B and eventually ad hoc functions. Results: There were not significative differences in clinical characteristics between patients that used enoxaparin or fondaparinux as thromboprpophylaxis for SARS COV2. The cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was not different in patients that used enoxaparin or fondaparinux as thromboprpophylaxis. No differences were found also in d-dimer and fibrinogen levels test at the admission and after 3 weeks as markers of prolonged inflammation due to SARS COV2. Discussion: The increased incidence of VTE in vivo has been reported in several studies although prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin was conducted in some of them. The clinical indication to prevent VTE was similar for heparins and fondaparinux. In our results a non-inferiority to prevent VTE was recorded when inpatients with SARS COV2 were treated with prophylactic doses of enoxaparin or fondaparinux according to international guidelines. The incidence of VTE in this retrospective analysis showed that Fondaparinux at fixed doses of 2.5 mg daily was not inferior to enoxaparin (4000 UI daily). Our results testify that fondaparinux and enoxaparin showed the same efficacy to reduce the incidence of VTE in inpatients with SARS COV2.