Sex-Based Differences in Severe Outcomes, Including Cardiovascular Hospitalization, in Adults With COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada.

Background: While men have experienced higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to women, an analysis of sex differences by age in severe outcomes during the acute phase of infection is lacking. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess heterogeneity in severe outcome risks by age and sex by conducting a retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults in Ontario who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 3 waves. Methods: Adjusted odds ratios were estimated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression models including an interaction term for age and sex. The primary outcome was a composite of severe outcomes (hospitalization for a cardiovascular (CV) event, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death) within 30 days. Results: Among 30,736, 199,132, and 186,131 adults who tested positive during the first 3 waves, 1,908 (6.2%), 5,437 (2.7%), and 5,653 (3.0%) experienced a severe outcome within 30 days. For all outcomes, the sex-specific risk depended on age (all P for interaction <0.05). Men with SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced a higher risk of outcomes than infected women of the same age, except for the risk of all-cause hospitalization being higher for young women than men (ages 18-45 years) during waves 2 and 3. The sex disparity in CV hospitalization across all ages either persisted or increased with each subsequent wave. Conclusions: To mitigate risks in subsequent waves, it is helpful to further understand the factors that contribute to the generally higher risks faced by men across all ages, and the persistent or increasing sex disparity in the risk of CV hospitalization.

Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group. RESULTS: Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes over a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. Methods: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy (INV) added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy (CON). Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as pre-specified in the trial protocol. Results: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23 % women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% diabetes, and median EF 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 non-cardiovascular deaths and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate 12.7% in INV, 13.4% in CON; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.18). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% vs. 8.6%, adjusted HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of non-cardiovascular mortality (5.6% vs. 4.4%, adjusted HR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.08-1.91) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. Conclusions: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04894877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894877.

Clinical risk, sociodemographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time in Ontario, Canada.

We aimed to determine whether early public health interventions in 2020 mitigated the association of sociodemographic and clinical risk factors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a population-based cohort study of all adults in Ontario, Canada who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 through December 31, 2020. The outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were determined for sociodemographic and clinical risk factors before and after the first-wave peak of the pandemic to assess for changes in effect sizes. Among 3,167,753 community-dwelling individuals, 142,814 (4.5%) tested positive. The association between age and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk varied over time (P-interaction < 0.0001). Prior to the first-wave peak, SARS-CoV-2 infection increased with age whereas this association reversed thereafter. Risk factors that persisted included male sex, residing in lower income neighborhoods, residing in more racially/ethnically diverse communities, immigration to Canada, hypertension, and diabetes. While there was a reduction in infection rates after mid-April 2020, there was less impact in regions with higher racial/ethnic diversity. Immediately following the initial peak, individuals living in the most racially/ethnically diverse communities with 2, 3, or ≥ 4 risk factors had ORs of 1.89, 3.07, and 4.73-fold higher for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to lower risk individuals in their community (all P < 0.0001). In the latter half of 2020, this disparity persisted with corresponding ORs of 1.66, 2.48, and 3.70-fold higher, respectively. In the least racially/ethnically diverse communities, there was little/no gradient in infection rates across risk strata. Further efforts are necessary to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the highest risk individuals residing in the most racially/ethnically diverse communities.

Access Denied? The Unintended Consequences of Pending Drug Pricing Rules.

The government of Canada now plans to bring into force new federal drug pricing regulations on 1 July 2022. We do not take issue with the goal of medication affordability, which is vital in healthcare the world over. Our concern is that the new guidelines are being implemented without due consideration for three major unintended consequences: regulatory changes will lower the number of clinical trials for new medications in Canada, fewer clinical trials will mean lower research and development investments, and changes will reduce patients' access to new medications. Access to effective medications is a cornerstone of healthcare for Canadian patients. As physicians, our duty to patient care demands that we tell the government to protect the right of Canadians to timely access to life-changing medicines.

Statins and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results of a Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study of 469 749 Adults From 2 Canadian Provinces.

Background Small observational studies have suggested that statin users have a lower risk of dying with COVID-19. We tested this hypothesis in a large, population-based cohort of adults in 2 of Canada's most populous provinces: Ontario and Alberta. Methods and Results We examined reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction swab positivity rates for SARS-CoV-2 in adults using statins compared with nonusers. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, we compared 30-day risk of all-cause emergency department visit, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death in statin users versus nonusers, adjusting for baseline differences in demographics, clinical comorbidities, and prior health care use, as well as propensity for statin use. Between January and June 2020, 2.4% of 226 142 tested individuals aged 18 to 65 years, 2.7% of 88 387 people aged 66 to 75 years, and 4.1% of 154 950 people older than 75 years had a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction swab for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with 353 878 nonusers, the 115 871 statin users were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 (3.6% versus 2.8%, P<0.001), but this difference was not significant after adjustment for baseline differences and propensity for statin use in each age stratum (adjusted odds ratio 1.00 [95% CI, 0.88-1.14], 1.00 [0.91-1.09], and 1.06 [0.82-1.38], respectively). In individuals younger than 75 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection, statin users were more likely to visit an emergency department, be hospitalized, be admitted to the intensive care unit, or to die of any cause within 30 days of their positive swab result than nonusers, but none of these associations were significant after multivariable adjustment. In individuals older than 75 years with SARS-CoV-2, statin users were more likely to visit an emergency department (28.2% versus 17.9%, adjusted odds ratio 1.41 [1.23-1.61]) or be hospitalized (32.7% versus 21.9%, adjusted odds ratio 1.19 [1.05-1.36]), but were less likely to die (26.9% versus 31.3%, adjusted odds ratio 0.76 [0.67-0.86]) of any cause within 30 days of their positive swab result than nonusers. Conclusions Compared with statin nonusers, patients taking statins exhibit the same risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and those younger than 75 years exhibit similar outcomes within 30 days of a positive test. Patients older than 75 years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and who were taking statins had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but exhibited lower 30-day all-cause mortality risk.

Rationale and design of the TAILOR-PCI digital study: Transitioning a randomized controlled trial to a digital registry.

BACKGROUND: Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes Due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (TAILOR-PCI) is the largest cardiovascular genotype-based randomized pragmatic trial (NCT#01742117) to evaluate the role of genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in improving ischemic outcomes after PCI. The trial has been extended from the original 12- to 24-month follow-up, using study coordinator-initiated telephone visits. TAILOR-PCI Digital Study tests the feasibility of extending the trial follow-up in a subset of patients for up to 24 months using state-of-the-art digital solutions. The rationale, design, and approach of extended digital study of patients recruited into a large, international, multi-center clinical trial has not been previously described. METHODS: A total of 930 patients from U.S. and Canadian sites previously enrolled in the 5,302 patient TAILOR-PCI trial within 23 months of randomization are invited by mail to the Digital Study website (http://tailorpci.eurekaplatform.org) and by up to 2 recruiting telephone calls. Eureka, a direct-to-participant digital research platform, is used to consent and collect prospective data on patients for the digital study. Patients are asked to answer health-related surveys at fixed intervals using the Eureka mobile app and or desktop platform. The likelihood of patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial transitioning to a registry using digital technology, the reasons for nonparticipation and engagement rates are evaluated. To capture hospitalizations, patients may optionally enable geofencing, a process that allows background location tracking and triggering of surveys if a hospital visit greater than 4 hours is detected. In addition, patients answer digital hospitalization surveys every month. Hospitalization data received from the Digital Study will be compared to data collected from study coordinator telephone visits during the same time frame. CONCLUSIONS: The TAILOR-PCI Digital Study evaluates the feasibility of transitioning a large multicenter randomized clinical trial to a digital registry. The study could provide evidence for the ability of digital technology to follow clinical trial patients and to ascertain trial-related events thus also building the foundation for conducting digital clinical trials. Such a digital approach may be especially pertinent in the era of COVID-19.