ABSTRACT
Background: Empagliflozin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory, metabolic and haemodynamic effects. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments are compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus empagliflozin 10mg once daily for 28 days or until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. On 3 March the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the investigators review the data and recruitment was consequently stopped on 7 March. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 8 July 2021 and 6 March 2023, 4271 patients were randomly allocated to receive either empagliflozin (2113 patients) or usual care alone (2158 patients). Overall, 289 (14%) patients allocated to empagliflozin and 307 (14%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.13; p=0.64). There was no evidence of significant differences in duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 8 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (79% vs. 78%; rate ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.10; p=0.44). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (16% vs. 17%; risk ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.84-1.08; p=0.44). Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, empagliflozin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Low-dose corticosteroids have been shown to reduce mortality for hypoxic COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen or ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation). We evaluated the use of a higher dose of corticosteroids in this patient group. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients with clinical evidence of hypoxia (i.e. receiving oxygen or with oxygen saturation <92% on room air) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which includes dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. On 11 May 2022, the independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended stopping recruitment of patients receiving no oxygen or simple oxygen only to this comparison due to safety concerns. We report the results for these participants only. Recruitment of patients receiving ventilatory support continues. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04381936 ). Findings: Between 25 May 2021 and 12 May 2022, 1272 COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and receiving no oxygen (1%) or simple oxygen only (99%) were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids versus usual care alone (of whom 87% received low dose corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomised, 745 (59%) were in Asia, 512 (40%) in the UK and 15 (1%) in Africa. 248 (19%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall, 121 (18%) of 659 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 75 (12%) of 613 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1.56; 95% CI 1.18-2.06; p=0.0020). There was also an excess of pneumonia reported to be due to non-COVID infection (10% vs. 6%; absolute difference 3.7%; 95% CI 0.7-6.6) and an increase in hyperglycaemia requiring increased insulin dose (22% vs. 14%; absolute difference 7.4%; 95% CI 3.2-11.5). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised for COVID-19 with clinical hypoxia but requiring either no oxygen or simple oxygen only, higher dose corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of death compared to usual care, which included low dose corticosteroids. The RECOVERY trial continues to assess the effects of higher dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation.
Subject(s)
Pneumonia , Diabetes Mellitus , Hypoxia , Death , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an anti-inflammatory drug that has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. In this initial assessment of DMF, performed at 27 UK hospitals, eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF 120mg twice daily for 2 days followed by 240mg twice daily for 8 days, or until discharge if sooner. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale, assessed using a proportional odds model. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enrolled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.85-1.46; p=0.42). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome. As expected, DMF caused flushing and gastrointestinal symptoms, each in around 6% of patients, but no new adverse effects were identified. Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, DMF was not associated with an improvement in clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
Flushing , Signs and Symptoms, Digestive , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes. Novel or repurposed antiviral drugs may reduce infection and disease severity through reducing viral replication and inflammation. ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of antiviral agents (ciclesonide, niclosamide) for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in care home residents. DesignCluster-randomised open-label blinded endpoint platform clinical trial testing antiviral agents in a post-exposure prophylaxis paradigm. SettingCare homes across all four United Kingdom member countries. ParticipantsCare home residents 65 years of age or older. InterventionsCare homes were to be allocated at random by computer to 42 days of antiviral agent plus standard care versus standard of care and followed for 60 days after randomisation. Main outcome measuresThe primary four-level ordered categorical outcome with participants classified according to the most serious of all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, SARS-CoV-2 infection and no infection. Analysis using ordinal logistic regression was by intention to treat. Other outcomes included the components of the primary outcome and transmission. ResultsDelays in contracting between NIHR and the manufacturers of potential antiviral agents significantly delayed any potential start date. Having set up the trial (protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, routine data algorithms, training materials), the trial was stopped in September 2021 prior to contracting of care homes and general practitioners in view of the success of vaccination in care homes with significantly reduced infections, hospitalisations and deaths. As a result, the sample size target (based on COVID-19 rates and deaths occurring in February-June 2020) became unfeasible. LimitationsCare home residents were not approached about the trial and so were not consented and did not receive treatment. Hence, the feasibility of screening, consent, treatment and data acquisition, and potential benefit of post exposure prophylaxis were never tested. Further, contracting between the University of Nottingham and the PIs, GPs and care homes was not completed, so the feasibility of contracting with all the different groups at the scale needed was not tested. ConclusionsThe role of post exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents was not tested because of changes in COVID-19 incidence, prevalence and virulence as a consequence of the vaccination programme that rendered the study unfeasible. Significant progress was made in describing and developing the infrastructure necessary for a large scale Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Products in care homes in all four UK nations. Future workThe role of post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents remains to be defined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes during a pandemic need to be removed before such studies are possible in the required short timescale.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , InflammationABSTRACT
Background: We evaluated the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was conducted that included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Findings: Between 2 February 2021 and 29 December 2021, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 hours recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 513 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98; p=0.026). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of 8 previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths) in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72). Including the results from RECOVERY into an updated meta-analysis of all 9 completed trials (involving 11,888 randomised patients and 1484 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; p<0.001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. Interpretation: In patients hospitalised for COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , DeathABSTRACT
Background: REGEN-COV is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of REGEN-COV in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus a single dose of REGEN-COV 8g (casirivimab 4g and imdevimab 4g) by intravenous infusion (REGEN-COV group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed first among patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at randomisation (seronegative) and then in the overall population. Findings: Between 18 September 2020 and 22 May 2021, 9785 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus REGEN-COV or usual care alone, including 3153 (32%) seronegative patients, 5272 (54%) seropositive patients and 1360 (14%) patients with unknown baseline antibody status. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 451 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.91; p=0.0010). In an analysis involving all randomised patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 944 (20%) of 4839 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 1026 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.86-1.03; p=0.17). The proportional effect of REGEN-COV on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity = 0.001). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) reduced 28-day mortality among patients who were seronegative at baseline.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its antithrombotic properties. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus 150mg aspirin once daily until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 01 November 2020 and 21 March 2021, 7351 patients were randomly allocated to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.04; p=0.35). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 9 days) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs. 74%; rate ratio 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10; p=0.0062). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.03; p=0.23). Aspirin use was associated with an absolute reduction in thrombotic events of 0.6% (SE 0.4%) and an absolute increase in clinically significant bleeding of 0.6% (SE 0.2%). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hemorrhage , Thrombosis , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory actions. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus colchicine twice daily for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other treatment arms) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 27 November 2020 and 4 March 2021, 5610 patients were randomly allocated to receive colchicine and 5730 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1173 (21%) patients allocated to colchicine and 1190 (21%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.10; p=0.77). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. There was no significant difference in duration of hospitalisation (median 10 days vs. 10 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (70% vs. 70%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03; p=0.44). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (25% vs. 25%; risk ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.96-1.09; p=0.47). Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, colchicine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Treatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Findings: Between 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.07; p=0.93). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (66% vs. 67%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03, p=0.50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28% vs. 29%; rate ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05, p=0.79). Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Findings: Between 23 April 2020 and 25 January 2021, 4116 adults were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 562 (14%) patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 1686 (41%) receiving non-invasive respiratory support, and. 1868 (45%) receiving no respiratory support other than oxygen. Median CRP was 143 [IQR 107-205] mg/L and 3385 (82%) patients were receiving systemic corticosteroids at randomisation. Overall, 596 (29%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 694 (33%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.96; p=0.007). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (54% vs. 47%; rate ratio 1.23; 95% CI 1.12-1.34; p<0.0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (33% vs. 38%; risk ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.78-0.93; p=0.0005). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes regardless of the level of respiratory support received and in addition to the use of systemic corticosteroids.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypoxia , Inflammation , DeathABSTRACT
BackgroundAzithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once daily by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other treatment arms). Patients were twice as likely to be randomised to usual care as to any of the active treatment groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 7 April and 27 November 2020, 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5182 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 496 (19%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 997 (19%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1{middle dot}00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0{middle dot}90-1{middle dot}12; p=0{middle dot}99). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. There was no difference in duration of hospitalisation (median 12 days vs. 13 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60% vs. 59%; rate ratio 1{middle dot}03; 95% CI 0{middle dot}97-1{middle dot}10; p=0{middle dot}29). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0{middle dot}97; 95% CI 0{middle dot}89-1{middle dot}07; p=0{middle dot}54). InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, azithromycin did not provide any clinical benefit. Azithromycin use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients where there is a clear antimicrobial indication. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the basis of in vitro activity, uncontrolled data, and small randomized studies. Methods: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of hydroxychloroquine vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 1561 patients randomly allocated to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared with 3155 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients allocated hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23; P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8%; rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5%; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmia. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Arrhythmias, Cardiac , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Corticosteroids may modulate immune-mediated lung injury and reducing progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, adaptive, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of dexamethasone 6 mg given once daily for up to ten days vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 2104 patients randomly allocated to receive dexamethasone were compared with 4321 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 454 (21.6%) patients allocated dexamethasone and 1065 (24.6%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute mortality rate reductions varied significantly depending on level of respiratory support at randomization (test for trend p<0.001): Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.0% vs. 40.7%, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.82]; p<0.001), by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (21.5% vs. 25.0%, RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]; p=0.002), but did not reduce mortality in patients not receiving respiratory support at randomization (17.0% vs. 13.2%, RR 1.22 [95% CI 0.93 to 1.61]; p=0.14). Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality among those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen at randomization, but not among patients not receiving respiratory support.