Purpose of Review We aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of hypercoagulability in individuals affected by COVID-19. Our goal is to describe the hypercoagulable state related to the infection and provide guidance regarding the possible benefits of anti-coagulation with the support of evidence from current literature. Recent Findings The incidence of thrombotic disease in individuals affected by COVID-19 is reported as high as 31%. A significant mortality benefit has been observed with the use of therapeutic anticoagulation in high-risk individuals. Literature supports the use of scoring systems, such as the sepsis-induced coagulopathy score, to risk-stratify individuals who might benefit from anticoagulation. Summary COVID-19-induced hypercoagulability has been demonstrated to play a significant role in overall COVID-19 outcomes. Current literature shows promising evidence with the use of therapeutic anticoagulation in high-risk individuals. Further studies are needed to better analyze the risks and benefits of anticoagulation in this specific patient population.

Background: Studies of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors report heterogeneous effects on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study assessed the effects of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride and placebo on measures of macro- and microvascular endothelial function in patients with T2D who represented a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population. Methods: This crossover study randomised T2D patients (n = 42) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7.5%, no diagnosed macro- or microvascular disease and on stable metformin background to linagliptin 5 mg qd, glimepiride 1–4 mg qd or placebo for 28 days. Fasting and postprandial macrovascular endothelial function, measured using brachial flow-mediated vasodilation, and microvascular function, measured using laser-Doppler on the dorsal thenar site of the right hand, were analysed after 28 days. Results: Baseline mean (standard deviation) age, body mass index and HbA1c were 60.3 (6.0) years, 30.3 (3.0) kg/m² and 7.41 (0.61)%, respectively. After 28 days, changes in fasting flow-mediated vasodilation were similar between the three study arms (treatment ratio, gMean [90% confidence interval]: linagliptin vs glimepiride, 0.884 [0.633–1.235]; linagliptin vs placebo, 0.884 [0.632–1.235]; glimepiride vs placebo, 1.000 [0.715–1.397]; P = not significant for all comparisons). Similarly, no differences were seen in postprandial flow-mediated vasodilation. However, under fasting conditions, linagliptin significantly improved microvascular function as shown by a 34% increase in hyperaemia area (P = 0.045 vs glimepiride), a 34% increase in resting blow flow (P = 0.011 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo), and a 25% increase in peak blood flow (P = 0.009 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo). There were no significant differences between treatments in postprandial changes. Linagliptin had no effect on heart rate or blood pressure. Rates of overall adverse events with linagliptin, glimepiride and placebo were 27.5, 61.0 and 35.0%, respectively. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were seen with linagliptin (5.0%) and placebo (2.5%) than with glimepiride (39.0%). Conclusions: Linagliptin had no effect on macrovascular function in T2D, but significantly improved microvascular function in the fasting state. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier—NCT01703286; registered October 1, 2012