Association Between Body Mass Index, Obesity, and Clinical Outcomes Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Brazil: An Analysis of One Year of Follow-up of BYPASS Registry Patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between body mass index (BMI), obesity, clinical outcomes, and mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in Brazil using a large sample with one year of follow-up from the Brazilian Registry of Cardiovascular Surgeries in Adults (or BYPASS) Registry database.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort-study enrolled 2,589 patients submitted to isolated CABG and divided them into normal weight (BMI 20.0-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m2) groups. Inpatient postoperative outcomes included the most frequently described complications and events. Collected post-discharge outcomes included rehospitalization and mortality rates within 30 days, six months, and one year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Sternal wound infections (SWI) rate was higher in obese compared to normal-weight patients (relative risk [RR]=5.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.37-17.82; P=0.001). Rehospitalization rates in six months after discharge were higher in obesity and overweight groups than in normal weight group (χ=6.03, P=0.049); obese patients presented a 2.2-fold increase in the risk for rehospitalization within six months compared to normal-weight patients (RR=2.16, 95% CI=1.17-4.09; P=0.045). Postoperative complications and mortality rates did not differ among groups during time periods.

CONCLUSION

Obesity increased the risk for SWI, leading to higher rehospitalization rates and need for surgical interventions within six months following CABG. Age, female sex, and diabetes were associated with a higher risk of mortality. The obesity paradox remains controversial since BMI may not be sufficient to assess postoperative risk in light of more complex and dynamic evaluations of body composition and physical fitness.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Mortality and major postoperative complications within 1 year after vascular surgery: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing vascular procedures are prone to developing postoperative complications affecting their short‑term mortality. Prospective reports describing the incidence of long‑term complications after vascular surgery are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the incidence of complications 1 year after vascular surgery and to evaluate an association between myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) and 1‑year mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a substudy of a large prospective cohort study Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION). Recruitment took place in 28 centers across 14 countries from August 2007 to November 2013. We enrolled patients aged 45 years or older undergoing vascular surgery, receiving general or regional anesthesia, and hospitalized for at least 1 night postoperatively. Plasma cardiac troponin T concentration was measured before the surgery and on the first, second, and third postoperative day. The patients or their relatives were contacted 1 year after the procedure to assess the incidence of major postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2641 patients who underwent vascular surgery, 2534 (95.9%) of whom completed 1‑year follow‑up. Their mean (SD) age was 68.2 (9.8) years, and the cohort was predominantly male (77.5%). The most frequent 1‑year complications were myocardial infarction (224/2534, 8.8%), amputation (187/2534, 7.4%), and congestive heart failure (67/2534, 2.6%). The 1‑year mortality rate was 8.8% (223/2534). MINS occurred in 633 patients (24%) and was associated with an increased 1‑year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.82; 95% CI, 2.14-3.72; P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of major postoperative complications after vascular surgery is high. The occurrence of MINS is associated with a nearly 3‑fold increase in 1‑year mortality.

Statins use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A population-based digitally enabled real-world evidence cross-sectional study in primary care in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Statins consist of the main strategy to reduce dyslipidemia-related cardiovascular risk. Nevertheless, there is scarce evidence on the real-world statins use in primary care settings in low-middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study using anonymized data routinely collected by community health workers in Brazil aimed to evaluate statin use and associated factors in a primary prevention population with cardiovascular risk enhancers.

METHODS

Study population consisted of adults with hypertension, diabetes and/or dyslipidemia. The primary and secondary outcomes were the proportion of individuals self-reporting statins use on any dose, and high-dose statins/high-intensity lipid lowering therapy (LLT) respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 2,133,900 adult individuals on the database, 415,766 (19.5%) were included in the study cohort. From this cohort, 89.1% had hypertension, 28.9% diabetes and 5.5% dyslipidemia. The mean age was 61.5 (SD 14.5) years, 63.4% were female and 61.0% were of mixed-race. Only 2.6% and 0.1% of individuals self-reported the use of statins and high-dose statins/high-intensity LLT, respectively. Older age (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.88,2.05;p < 0.001), living in the South region of Brazil (OR 4.39; 95%CI 3.97,4.85,p < 0.001), heart failure (OR 2.60; 95%CI 2.33,2.89,p < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.49; 95%CI 1.35,1.64,p < 0.001) and anti-hypertensive medications use (OR 4.38; 95%CI 4.07,4.71,p < 0.001) were independently associated with statin use.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world evidence study analyzing data routinely collected in a digitized primary care setting, we observed a very low use of statins in a primary prevention population with cardiovascular risk enhancers in Brazil. Socio-demographic factors and co-morbidities were associated to higher statins use rates.

Randomized Trial of Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Blood Pressure After 5 Years

BACKGROUND

Obesity represents a major obstacle for controlling hypertension, the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on hypertension control and remission.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized clinical trial with subjects with obesity grade 1 or 2 plus hypertension using at least 2 medications. We excluded subjects with previous cardiovascular events and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Subjects were assigned to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) combined with medical therapy (MT) or MT alone. We reassessed the original primary outcome (reduction of at least 30% of the total antihypertensive medications while maintaining blood pressure levels <140/90 mm Hg) at 5 years. The main analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

A total of 100 subjects were included (76% women, age 43.8 ± 9.2 years, body mass index: 36.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2). At 5 years, body mass index was 36.40 kg/m2 (95% CI: 35.28-37.52 kg/m2) for MT and 28.01 kg/m2 (95% CI: 26.95-29.08 kg/m2) for RYGB (P < 0.001). Compared with MT, RYGB promoted a significantly higher rate of number of medications reduction (80.7% vs 13.7%; relative risk: 5.91; 95% CI: 2.58-13.52; P < 0.001) and the mean number of antihypertensive medications was 2.97 (95% CI: 2.33-3.60) for MT and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.51-1.09) for RYGB (P < 0.001). The rates of hypertension remission were 2.4% vs 46.9% (relative risk: 19.66; 95% CI: 2.74-141.09; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis considering only completed cases revealed consistent results. Interestingly, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower after RYGB (0% vs 15.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery represents an effective and durable strategy to control hypertension and related polypharmacy in subjects with obesity. (GAstric bypass to Treat obEse Patients With steAdy hYpertension [GATEWAY]; NCT01784848).

One-year Outcomes after Discharge from Noncardiac Surgery and Association between Predischarge Complications and Death after Discharge: Analysis of the VISION Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery.

METHODS

This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis.

RESULTS

Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study

BACKGROUND

Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated.

METHODS

DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRY

NCT05558098.

The effects of canagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in subgroups defined by population-specific body mass index: Insights from the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial

AIM

To assess the effects of canagliflozin on clinical outcomes and intermediate markers across population-specific body mass index (BMI) categories in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial.

METHODS

Individual participant data were pooled and analysed in subgroups according to population-specific BMI. The main outcomes of interest were: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke or cardiovascular death); composite renal outcome; and changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), body weight, albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope. Cox proportional hazards models and mixed-effect models were used.

RESULTS

A total of 14 520 participants were included, of whom 9378 (65%) had obesity. Overall, canagliflozin reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.93) with no heterogeneity of treatment effect across BMI subgroups (Pheterogeneity  = 0.76). Similarly, canagliflozin reduced composite renal outcomes (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84) with no heterogeneity across subgroups observed (Pheterogeneity  = 0.72). The effects of canagliflozin on body weight and SBP differed across BMI subgroups (Pheterogeneity  <0.01 and 0.04, respectively) but were consistent for albuminuria (Pheterogeneity  = 0.60). Chronic eGFR slope with canagliflozin treatment was consistent across subgroups (Pheterogeneity  >0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The cardiovascular and renal benefits of canagliflozin and its safety profile were consistent across population-specific BMI subgroups for adults in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial.

Impact of a quality programme on overindication of surgeries for endometriosis and cholecystectomies

Approximately 45% of patients receive medical services with minimal or no benefit (low-value care). In addition to the increasing costs to the health system, performing invasive procedures without an indication poses a potentially preventable risk to patient safety. This study aimed to determine whether a managed quality improvement programme could prevent cholecystectomy and surgery for endometriosis treatment with minimal or no benefit to patients.This before-and-after study was conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, which has a main medical remuneration model of fee for service. All patients who underwent cholecystectomy or surgery for endometriosis between 1 August 2020 and 31 May 2021 were evaluated.The intervention consisted of allowing the performance of procedures that met previously defined criteria or for which the indications were validated by a board of experts.A total of 430 patients were included in this analysis. The programme prevented the unnecessary performance of 13% of cholecystectomies (p=0.0001) and 22.2% (p=0.0006) of surgeries for the treatment of endometriosis. This resulted in an estimated annual cost reduction to the health system of US$466 094.93.In a hospital with a private practice and fee-for-service medical remuneration, the definition of clear criteria for indicating surgery and the analysis of cases that did not meet these criteria by a board of reputable experts at the institution resulted in a statistically significant reduction in low-value cholecystectomies and endometriosis surgeries.

Shorter History of Hypertension as a Predictor of Hypertension Remission after 3-years of Bariatric Surgery: Data from the GATEWAY Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence explored predictors of hypertension (HTN) remission after bariatric but data are limited to observational studies and lack of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). This study was aimed to evaluate the rate of HTN remission after bariatric surgery using ABPM and to define predictors of mid-term HTN remission.

METHODS

We included patients enrolled in the surgical arm of the GATEWAY randomized trial. HTN remission was defined as controlled blood pressure (< 130 × 80 mmHg) evaluated by 24-h ABPM while no need of anti-hypertensive medications after 36 months. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the predictors of HTN remission after 36 months.

RESULTS

46 patients submitted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). HTN remission occurred in 39% (n = 14 out of 36 patients with complete data at 36 months). Patients with HTN remission had shorter HTN history than no remission group (5.9 ± 5.5 vs. 12.5 ± 8.1 years; p = 0.01). The baseline insulin levels were lower in patients who presented HTN remission, although not statistically significant (OR: 0.90; CI 95%: 0.80-0.99; p = 0.07). In the multivariate analysis, the HTN history (years) was the only independent predictor of HTN remission (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; p = 0.04). Therefore, for each additional year of HTN history, the chance of HTN remission decreases by approximately 15% after RYGB.

CONCLUSION

After 3 years of RYGB, HTN remission defined by ABPM was common and independently associated with a shorter HTN history. These data underscore the need of early effective approach of obesity aiming greater impact in its comorbidities.

Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition for Thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19: Primary Results of the ASPEN-COVID-19 Trial

BACKGROUND

Thrombo-inflammation is central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. TF (tissue factor), a driver disordered coagulation and inflammation in viral infections, may be a therapeutic target in COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of the novel TF inhibitor rNAPc2 (recombinant nematode anticoagulation protein c2) in COVID-19 are unknown.

METHODS

ASPEN-COVID-19 was an international, randomized, open-label, active comparator clinical trial with blinded end point adjudication. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels were randomized 1:1:2 to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by heparin on day 8 or to heparin per local standard of care. In comparisons of the pooled rNAPc2 versus heparin groups, the primary safety end point was major or nonmajor clinically relevant International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding through day 8. The primary efficacy end point was proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to day 8, or discharge if before day 8. Patients were followed for 30 days.

RESULTS

Among 160 randomized patients, median age was 54 years, 43.1% were female, and 38.8% had severe baseline COVID-19. There were no significant differences between rNAPc2 and heparin in bleeding or other safety events. Overall, median change in D-dimer was -16.8% (interquartile range, -45.7 to 36.8; P=0.41) with rNAPc2 treatment and -11.2% (-36.0 to 34.4; P=0.91) with heparin (P_intergroup=0.47). In prespecified analyses, in severely ill patients, D-dimer levels tended to increase more within the heparin (median, 29.0% [-14.9 to 145.2]; P=0.02) than the rNAPc2 group (median, 25.9% [-49.1 to 136.4]; P=0.14; P_intergroup=0.96); in mildly ill patients, D-dimer levels were reduced within each group with a numerically greater reduction with rNAPc2 versus heparin (rNAPc2 median, -32.7% [-44.7 to 4.3]; P=0.007 and heparin median, -16.8% [-36.0 to 0.5]; P=0.008, P_intergroup=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

rNAPc2 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated without excess bleeding or serious adverse events but did not significantly reduce D-dimer more than heparin at day 8.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04655586.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04360720).

Functional assessment based on cardiopulmonary exercise testing in mild heart failure: A multicentre study

AIMS

In this multicentre study, we compared cardio-pulmonary exercise test (CPET) parameters between heart failure (HF) patients classified as New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I and II to assess NYHA performance and prognostic role in mild HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included consecutive HF patients in NYHA class I or II who underwent CPET in three Brazilian centres. We analysed the overlap between kernel density estimations for the per cent-predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO2 ), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2 ) slope, and oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) by NYHA class. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the capacity of per cent-predicted peak VO2 to discriminate between NYHA class I and II. For prognostication, time to all-cause death was used to produce Kaplan-Meier estimates. Of 688 patients included in this study, 42% were classified as NYHA I and 58% as NYHA II, 55% were men, and mean age was 56 years. Median global per cent-predicted peak VO2 was 66.8% (IQR 56-80), VE/VCO2 slope was 36.9 (31.6-43.3), and mean OUES was 1.51 (±0.59). Kernel density overlap between NYHA class I and II was 86% for per cent-predicted peak VO2 , 89% for VE/VCO2 slope, and 84% for OUES. Receiving-operating curve analysis showed a significant, albeit limited performance of per cent-predicted peak VO2 alone to discriminate between NYHA class I vs. II (AUC 0.55, 95% CI 0.51-0.59, P = 0.005). Model accuracy for probability of being classified as NYHA class I (vs. NYHA class II) across the spectrum of the per cent-predicted peak VO2 was limited, with an absolute probability increment of 13% when per cent-predicted peak VO2 increased from 50% to 100%. Overall mortality in NYHA class I and II was not significantly different (P = 0.41), whereas NYHA class III patients displayed a distinctively higher death rate (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic HF classified as NYHA I overlapped substantially with those classified as NYHA II in objective physiological measures and prognosis. NYHA classification may represent a poor discriminator of cardiopulmonary capacity in patients with mild HF.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

Accuracy of screening strategies for masked hypertension: a large-scale nationwide study based on home blood pressure monitoring

This study compared the ability of guideline-proposed office blood pressure (OBP) screening thresholds [European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines: 130/85 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines: 120/75 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg] and novel screening scores to identify normotensive individuals at high risk of having masked hypertension (MH) in an office setting. We cross-sectionally evaluated untreated participants with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg (n = 22,266) and an OBP < 130/80 mmHg (n = 10,005) who underwent home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (derivation cohort) from 686 Brazilian sites. MH was defined according to criteria suggested by the ESH (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 135/85 mmHg), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (BSC) (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and ACC/AHA (OBP < 130/80 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg). Scores were generated from multivariable logistic regression coefficients between MH and clinical variables (OBP, age, sex, and BMI). Considering the ESH, BSC, and ACC/AHA criteria, 17.2%, 38.5%, and 21.2% of the participants had MH, respectively. Guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds yielded area under curve (AUC) values of 0.640 (for ESH criteria), 0.641 (for BSC criteria), and 0.619 (for ACC/AHA criteria) for predicting MH, while scores presented as continuous variables or quartiles yielded AUC values of 0.700 and 0.688 (for ESH criteria), 0.720 and 0.709 (for BSC criteria), and 0.671 and 0.661 (for ACC/AHA criteria), respectively. Further analyses performed with alternative untreated participants (validation cohort; n = 2807 with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; n = 1269 with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg) yielded similar AUC values. In conclusion, the accuracy of guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds in identifying individuals at high risk of having MH in an office setting is limited and is inferior to that yielded by scores derived from simple clinical variables.

Association between acute disease severity and one-year quality of life among post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients: Coalition VII prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation).

RESULTS

1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI.

METHODS

We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Colchicine and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

METHODS

The ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug.

INTERPRETATION

Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions.

INTERPRETATION

The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Morphine and clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic and antiplatelet therapy: Insights from the TREAT trial

BACKGROUND

Morphine is commonly used to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnea in STEMI but it lowers blood pressure and delays the activity of oral antiplatelet agents. The impact of morphine on clinical outcomes remains unknown. This analysis was performed to determine if morphine use was associated with increased risk of adverse clinical events among STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

METHODS

In the Ticagrelor in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Pharmacological Thrombolysis (TREAT) study, 3799 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Morphine use was left to the discretion of the treating physicians. In this pre-specified analysis, we evaluated clinical outcomes based on the use and timing of morphine administration. Outcomes were stratified by randomized treatment group. Multivariable analysis was performed using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) weighting.

RESULTS

Morphine was used in 53% of patients. After adjustment using IPTW weighting, morphine use was associated with higher hazard of reinfarction at 7 days (HR 4.9, P = .0006) and 30 days (HR 1.7, P = .04), and lower hazard of major bleeding (HR 0.37, P = .006). There was no significant difference in mortality at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic therapy, morphine use was associated with a higher risk of early reinfarction and a lower risk of major bleeding but no difference in mortality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background

Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.

Findings

From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52–1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53–1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57–1·04]).

Interpretation

In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Digital Health-Enabled Clinical Trials in Stroke: Ready for Prime Time?

As stroke continues to represent a major global health care problem, advancing our knowledge of new effective and safe stroke interventions represents a public health priority. The identification of these therapies requires the conduct of high-quality and well-powered randomized clinical trials. Despite its potential to inform clinical practice, traditional randomized clinical trial models have their drawbacks, including elevated costs, long completion times, failure to recruit the target sample sizes, lack of diversity, and complex operational procedures. Therefore, improving the participants' experience and trials' overall efficiency constitutes an important unmet need. Innovative models such as virtual and decentralized patient-centric trials have been proposed as a valuable strategy in this pursuit. In this narrative review, we discuss the limitations of traditional randomized clinical trial models and present the concept, advantages, and challenges of decentralized digitally enabled approaches to the conduct of stroke clinical trials.

Apixaban or Warfarin and Aspirin or Placebo After Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Stroke: A Post Hoc Analysis From the AUGUSTUS Trial

Importance

Data are limited regarding the risk of cerebrovascular ischemic events and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Objective

Determine the efficacy and safety of apixaban or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and aspirin or placebo according to prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolism (TE).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prospective, multicenter, 2-by-2 factorial, randomized clinical trial, post hoc parallel analyses were performed to compare randomized treatment regimens according to presence or absence of prior stroke/TIA/TE using Cox proportional hazards models. Patients with AF, recent ACS or PCI, and planned use of P2Y12 inhibitors for 6 months or longer were included; 33 patients with missing data about prior stroke/TIA/TE were excluded.

Interventions

Apixaban (5 mg or 2.5 mg twice daily) or VKA and aspirin or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding.

Results

Of 4581 patients included, 633 (13.8%) had prior stroke/TIA/TE. Patients with vs without prior stroke/TIA/TE were older; had higher CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores; and more frequently had prior bleeding, heart failure, diabetes, and prior oral anticoagulant use. Apixaban was associated with lower rates of major or CRNM bleeding and death or hospitalization than VKA in patients with (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03) and without (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.82) prior stroke/TIA/TE. Patients without prior stroke/TIA/TE receiving aspirin vs placebo had higher rates of bleeding; this difference appeared less substantial among patients with prior stroke/TIA/TE (P = .01 for interaction). Aspirin was associated with numerically lower rates of death or ischemic events than placebo in patients with (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.20) and without (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.21) prior stroke/TIA/TE (not statistically significant).

Conclusions and Relevance

The safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with VKA was consistent with the AUGUSTUS findings, irrespective of prior stroke/TIA/TE. Aspirin increased major or CRNM bleeding, particularly in patients without prior stroke/TIA/TE. Although aspirin may have some benefit in patients with prior stroke, our findings support the use of apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin for the majority of patients with AF and ACS and/or PCI, regardless of prior stroke/TIA/TE status.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02415400.

Dapagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection: An Analysis of the DARE-19 Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at high risk of AKI and KRT, especially in the presence of CKD. The Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19 (DARE-19) trial showed that in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin versus placebo resulted in numerically fewer participants who experienced organ failure or death, although these differences were not statistically significant. We performed a secondary analysis of the DARE-19 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin on kidney outcomes in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups of participants defined by baseline eGFR.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The DARE-19 trial randomized 1250 patients who were hospitalized (231 [18%] had eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m²) with COVID-19 and cardiometabolic risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Dual primary outcomes (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death, and a hierarchical composite end point of recovery [change in clinical status by day 30]), and the key secondary kidney outcome (composite of AKI, KRT, or death), and safety were assessed in participants with baseline eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m².

RESULTS

The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on the primary prevention outcome (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.10), primary recovery outcome (win ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22), and the composite kidney outcome (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 1.07) were consistent across eGFR subgroups (P for interaction: 0.98, 0.67, and 0.44, respectively). The effects of dapagliflozin on AKI were also similar in participants with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m² (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.77) and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m² (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.29). Dapagliflozin was well tolerated in participants with eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m².

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of dapagliflozin on primary and secondary outcomes in hospitalized participants with COVID-19 were consistent in those with eGFR below/above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m². Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of AKI in participants with eGFR below or above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m².

Abstract 113: Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition For Thromboprophylaxis In COVID-19: Primary Results Of The ASPEN-COVID-19 Phase 2b Randomized Trial

Background: Tissue factor contributes to thrombo-inflammation in viral infection and may be a target in COVID-19. Recombinant nematode anticoagulant protein c2 (rNAPc2), a tissue factor inhibitor with anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties, has not been studied in COVID-19.

Methods: In Phase 2b of ASPEN-COVID-19 (NCT04655586), an open-label blinded endpoint study, COVID-19 inpatients with elevated D-dimer are randomized 1:1:2 to higher or lower dose rNAPc2 given subcutaneously up to 5 days or local standard of care heparin. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints are D-dimer change (to Day 8 or discharge if earlier) and ISTH major bleeding. Recovery time is an exploratory outcome.

Results: 160 patients were randomized at 24 sites in 3 countries. The average age was 56 years, 43% were female, 19% were Hispanic, and 21% were black. Baseline comorbidities included hypertension (51%), diabetes (35%), and smoking (35%); 11% were critically ill. On average, randomization occurred 10 days after COVID-19 symptom onset, and qualifying D-dimers were elevated 3.7-fold above the upper limit of normal. Median recovery time was 6 days (aggregate distribution shown in Figure). Enrollment has completed, database lock is anticipated Q1 2022, and final results will be ready for presentation at Vascular Discovery.

Conclusion: ASPEN tests the hypothesis that compared to heparin, rNAPc2 reduces D-dimer in COVID-19. Results may help to provide a novel therapy for thromboprophylaxis in virus-related coagulopathies.

Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel on Coronary Microcirculation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Introduction

Clopidogrel has been demonstrated to be effective in improving coronary microcirculation (CM) among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytics. Ticagrelor is a more potent adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor blocker proven to be superior to clopidogrel among patients with acute coronary syndromes. The present study aimed to compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on CM in patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics.

Methods

The present study prospectively included 48 patients participating in the TREAT trial, which randomly assigned patients with STEMI undergoing fibrinolysis to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. The primary endpoint of this study was the evaluation of the CM using the global myocardial perfusion score index (global MPSI) obtained by myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE). Platelet aggregation to ADP was evaluated by Multiplate® and expressed as area under the curve (AUC).

Results

The global MPSI demonstrated no differences between the groups [mean 1.4 (1.2–1.5) in the ticagrelor group and 1.2 (1.2–1.5) in the clopidogrel group (p = 0.41)]. Platelet aggregability was lower in the ticagrelor group (18.1 ± 9.7 AUC), compared to the clopidogrel group (26.1 ± 12.5 AUC, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

We found no improvement in coronary microcirculation with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics, despite the fact that platelet aggregation to ADP was lower with ticagrelor.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT03104062.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02061-0.

The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials: design, baseline characteristics, and challenges

Background

Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed, but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging.

Methods

The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3500 outpatients and 2500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and aspirin vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization, it is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization, it is major thrombotic events, need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Results

At the completion of enrollment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3917 patients, and the inpatient trial had enrolled 2611 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals, and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine, and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban, across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.

Justificativa e Desenho do Ensaio Clínico Randomizado COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V): Hidroxicloroquina vs. Placebo em Pacientes Não Hospitalizados

Fundamento

Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos.

Objetivo

Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente.

Métodos

O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540.

Resultados

Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar.

Conclusão

Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.

Practical Recommendations on Quantifying and Interpreting Treatment Effects in the Presence of Terminal Competing Risks: A Review

Importance

In a comparative trial, the time to a clinical event is often a key end point. However, the occurrence of a terminal event, such as death or premature study discontinuation, may preclude observation of this outcome. Although various methods for handling competing risks are available, no specific recommendations have been made for scenarios encountered in practice, especially when the terminal event profiles of the study arms are dissimilar. Moreover, appropriate methods for a desirable outcome, such as live hospital discharge, have seldom been discussed.

Observations

Several of the most commonly used methods are reviewed. The first regards the terminal event as censoring and applies standard survival analysis to the event of interest. The between-group difference is usually summarized by the cause-specific hazard ratio. This summary measure is inappropriate when the new therapy markedly prolongs time to the terminal event. Moreover, the corresponding Kaplan-Meier curve for the end point of interest is uninterpretable. The second method is to use the cumulative incidence curve, which is the probability of experiencing the event of interest by each time point, acknowledging that patients who have died will never experience the event. However, the resulting pseudo hazard ratio is difficult to interpret. With a proper alternative summary measure, this approach works well for a desirable outcome but may not for an undesirable outcome. The third method focuses on the event-free survival time by combining information from occurrences of the terminal event and the event of interest simultaneously. This clinically interpretable method naturally accounts for differences in terminal event rates when comparing treatments with respect to the time to an undesirable outcome.

Conclusions and Relevance

This article enhances our understanding of each method's advantages and shortcomings and assists practitioners in choosing appropriate methods for handling competing risk problems in practice.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Dapagliflozin in patients with cardiometabolic risk factors hospitalised with COVID-19 (DARE-19): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 can lead to multiorgan failure. Dapagliflozin, a SGLT2 inhibitor, has significant protective benefits for the heart and kidney. We aimed to see whether this agent might provide organ protection in patients with COVID-19 by affecting processes dysregulated during acute illness.

METHODS

DARE-19 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor (ie, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease). Patients critically ill at screening were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to dapagliflozin (10 mg daily orally) or matched placebo for 30 days. Dual primary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population: the outcome of prevention (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death), and the hierarchial composite outcome of recovery (change in clinical status by day 30). Safety outcomes, in patients who received at least one study medication dose, included serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and adverse events of interest. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350593.

FINDINGS

Between April 22, 2020 and Jan 1, 2021, 1250 patients were randomly assigned with 625 in each group. The primary composite outcome of prevention showed organ dysfunction or death occurred in 70 patients (11·2%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 86 (13·8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·58-1·10; p=0·17). For the primary outcome of recovery, 547 patients (87·5%) in the dapagliflozin group and 532 (85·1%) in the placebo group showed clinical status improvement, although this was not statistically significant (win ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·97-1·22; p=0·14). There were 41 deaths (6·6%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 54 (8·6%) in the placebo group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·52-1·16). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (10·6%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 82 (13·3%) of 616 patients given the placebo.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with cardiometabolic risk factors who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin did not result in a statistically significant risk reduction in organ dysfunction or death, or improvement in clinical recovery, but was well tolerated.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation.

DESIGN

ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

SUMMARY

The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

Tofacitinib in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.

METHODS

We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.

FINDINGS

From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

FUNDING

Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Quality of life and long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Protocol for a prospective cohort study (Coalition VII)

INTRODUCTION

The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Effects of dapagliflozin on prevention of major clinical events and recovery in patients with respiratory failure because of COVID-19: Design and rationale for the DARE-19 study

AIMS

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. It can lead to multiorgan failure, including respiratory and cardiovascular decompensation, and kidney injury, with significant associated morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with underlying metabolic, cardiovascular, respiratory or kidney disease. Dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, has shown significant cardio- and renoprotective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), heart failure and chronic kidney disease, and may provide similar organ protection in high-risk patients with COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DARE-19 (NCT04350593) is an investigator-initiated, collaborative, international, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study testing the dual hypotheses that dapagliflozin can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular, kidney and/or respiratory complications or all-cause mortality, or improve clinical recovery, in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 but not critically ill on admission. Eligible patients will have ≥1 cardiometabolic risk factor for COVID-19 complications. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo. Primary efficacy endpoints are time to development of new or worsened organ dysfunction during index hospitalization, or all-cause mortality, and the hierarchical composite endpoint of change in clinical status through day 30 of treatment. Safety of dapagliflozin in individuals with COVID-19 will be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

DARE-19 will evaluate whether dapagliflozin can prevent COVID-19-related complications and all-cause mortality, or improve clinical recovery, and assess the safety profile of dapagliflozin in this patient population. Currently, DARE-19 is the first large randomized controlled trial investigating use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19.

Three-year effects of bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea in patients with obesity grade 1 and 2: a sub-analysis of the GATEWAY trial

BACKGROUND

Most of the evidence on bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is based on observational studies and/or short-term follow-up in patients with obesity grade 3.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This randomized study compared the effects of roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or usual care (UC) on OSA severity in patients with obesity grade 1-2. Mild, moderate, and severe OSA was defined by the apnea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 5-14.9; 15-29.9, and ≥30 events/h, respectively. OSA remission was defined by converting any form of OSA into normal AHI (<5 events/h).

RESULTS

After 3-year of follow-up, the body-mass index increased in the UC while decreased in the RYGB group: +1.7 (-1.9; 2.7) versus -10.6 (-12.7; -9.2) kg/m², respectively. The AHI increased by 5 (-4.2; 12.7) in the UC group while reduced in the RYGB group to -13.2 (-22.7; -7) events/h. UC significantly increase the frequency of moderate OSA (from 15.4 to 46.2%). In contrast, RYGB had a huge impact on reaching no OSA status (from 4.2 to 70.8%) in parallel to a decrease of moderate (from 41.7 to 8.3%) and severe OSA (from 20.8 to 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is an attractive strategy for mid-term OSA remission or decrease moderate-to-severe forms of OSA in patients with obesity grade 1-2.

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Randomised, open label trial.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group.

INTERVENTIONS

Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685.

Apixaban or Vitamin K Antagonists and Aspirin or Placebo According to Kidney Function in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the AUGUSTUS Trial

BACKGROUND

In the AUGUSTUS trial (An Open-Label, 2×2 Factorial, Randomized Controlled, Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban Versus Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin Versus Aspirin Placebo in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), apixaban resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations than vitamin K antagonists, and aspirin caused more bleeding than placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention treated with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. We evaluated the risk-benefit balance of antithrombotic therapy according to kidney function.

METHODS

In 4456 patients, the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) formula was used to calculate baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The effect of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists and aspirin versus placebo was assessed across kidney function categories by using Cox models. The primary outcome was International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and ischemic events (death, stroke, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis [definite or probable], or urgent revascularization). Creatinine clearance <30 mL/min was an exclusion criterion in the AUGUSTUS trial.

RESULTS

Overall, 30%, 52%, and 19% had an eGFR of >80, >50 to 80, and 30 to 50 mL·min^-1·1.73 m^-2, respectively. At the 6-month follow-up, a total of 543 primary outcomes of bleeding, 1125 death or hospitalizations, and 282 ischemic events occurred. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, patients assigned apixaban had lower rates for all 3 outcomes across most eGFR categories without significant interaction. The absolute risk reduction with apixaban was most pronounced in those with an eGFR of 30 to 50 mL·min^-1·1.73 m^-2 for bleeding events with rates of 13.1% versus 21.3% (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84). Patients assigned aspirin had a higher risk of bleeding in all eGFR categories with an even greater increase among those with eGFR >80 mL·min^-1·1.73 m^-2: 16.6% versus 5.6% (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 2.19-4.74; P for interaction=0.007). The risk of death or hospitalization and ischemic events were comparable to aspirin and placebo across eGFR categories with hazard ratios ranging from 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.23) to 1.28 (95% CI, 1.02-1.59) and from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.48-1.17) to 1.34 (95% CI, 0.81-2.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of apixaban was consistent irrespective of kidney function, compared with warfarin, and in accordance with the overall trial results. The risk of bleeding with aspirin was consistently higher across all kidney function categories. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02415400.

Evaluation of 1-Year Follow-up of Patients Included in the Registry of Clinical Practice in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk (REACT)

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice, there is evidence of failure to prescribe evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk. However, in Brazil, data on 1-year outcomes of these patients remain insufficient.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes and their major predictors in a 12-month follow-up of a Brazilian multicenter registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

This prospective observational study documented the outpatient clinical practice of managing patients over 45 years of age and of high cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention. Patients were followed-up for 1 year, and the prescription of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, and cardiovascular death) were assessed. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

From July 2010 to August 2014, a total of 5076 individuals were enrolled in 48 centers, 91% of the 4975 eligible patients were followed-up in cardiology centers, and 68.6% were in secondary prevention. At 1 year, the concomitant use of antiplatelet agents, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced from 28.3% to 24.2% (p < 0.001). Major cardiovascular event rate was 5.46%, and the identified predictors were age, patients in secondary prevention, and diabetic nephropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large national registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk, risk predictors similar to those of international registries were identified, but medical prescription adherence to evidence-based therapies was inferior and significantly worsened at 1 year. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0).