Effect of P2Y12 Inhibitors on Organ Support-Free Survival in Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Platelet activation is a potential therapeutic target in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effect of P2Y12 inhibition among critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, open-label, adaptive platform, 1:1 randomized clinical trial included critically ill (requiring intensive care-level support) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled between February 26, 2021, through June 22, 2022. Enrollment was discontinued on June 22, 2022, by the trial leadership in coordination with the study sponsor given a marked slowing of the enrollment rate of critically ill patients. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a P2Y12 inhibitor or no P2Y12 inhibitor (usual care) for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death and, for participants who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results: At the time of trial termination, 949 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [46-65] years; 603 male [63.5%]) had been randomly assigned, 479 to the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 470 to usual care. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 372 participants (78.8%) and clopidogrel in 100 participants (21.2%). The estimated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the effect of P2Y12 inhibitor on organ support-free days was 1.07 (95% credible interval, 0.85-1.33). The posterior probability of superiority (defined as an OR > 1.0) was 72.9%. Overall, 354 participants (74.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 339 participants (72.4%) in the usual care group survived to hospital discharge (median AOR, 1.15; 95% credible interval, 0.84-1.55; posterior probability of superiority, 80.8%). Major bleeding occurred in 13 participants (2.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 13 (2.8%) in the usual care group. The estimated mortality rate at 90 days for the P2Y12 inhibitor group was 25.5% and for the usual care group was 27.0% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = .77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of critically ill participants hospitalized for COVID-19, treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor did not improve the number of days alive and free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. The use of the P2Y12 inhibitor did not increase major bleeding compared with usual care. These data do not support routine use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

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.

Colchicine for community-treated patients with COVID-19 (COLCORONA): a phase 3, randomised, double-blinded, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a role for excessive inflammation in COVID-19 complications. Colchicine is an oral anti-inflammatory medication beneficial in gout, pericarditis, and coronary disease. We aimed to investigate the effect of colchicine on the composite of COVID-19-related death or hospital admission. METHODS: The present study is a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. The study was done in Brazil, Canada, Greece, South Africa, Spain, and the USA, and was led by the Montreal Heart Institute. Patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by PCR testing or clinical criteria who were not being treated in hospital were eligible if they were at least 40 years old and had at least one high-risk characteristic. The randomisation list was computer-generated by an unmasked biostatistician, and masked randomisation was centralised and done electronically through an automated interactive web-response system. The allocation sequence was unstratified and used a 1:1 ratio with a blocking schema and block sizes of six. Patients were randomly assigned to receive orally administered colchicine (0·5 mg twice per day for 3 days and then once per day for 27 days thereafter) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death or hospital admission for COVID-19. Vital status at the end of the study was available for 97·9% of patients. The analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The COLCORONA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04322682) and is now closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Trial enrolment began in March 23, 2020, and was completed in Dec 22, 2020. A total of 4488 patients (53·9% women; median age 54·0 years, IQR 47·0-61·0) were enrolled and 2235 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine and 2253 to placebo. The primary endpoint occurred in 104 (4·7%) of 2235 patients in the colchicine group and 131 (5·8%) of 2253 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 0·79, 95·1% CI 0·61-1·03; p=0·081). Among the 4159 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the primary endpoint occurred in 96 (4·6%) of 2075 patients in the colchicine group and 126 (6·0%) of 2084 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·75, 0·57-0·99; p=0·042). Serious adverse events were reported in 108 (4·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 139 (6·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·051); pneumonia occurred in 63 (2·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 92 (4·1%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·021). Diarrhoea was reported in 300 (13·7%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 161 (7·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In community-treated patients including those without a mandatory diagnostic test, the effect of colchicine on COVID-19-related clinical events was not statistically significant. Among patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, colchicine led to a lower rate of the composite of death or hospital admission than placebo. Given the absence of orally administered therapies to prevent COVID-19 complications in community-treated patients and the benefit of colchicine in patients with PCR-proven COVID-19, this safe and inexpensive anti-inflammatory agent could be considered for use in those at risk of complications. Notwithstanding these considerations, replication in other studies of PCR-positive community-treated patients is recommended. FUNDING: The Government of Quebec, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the Rudin Family Foundation, and philanthropist Sophie Desmarais.

Non-severe immunosuppression might be associated with a lower risk of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: A pilot study.

The role of immunosuppression among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has not been elucidated and management may be challenging. This observational study included confirmed COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was the development of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Time to moderate-severe ARDS, the need for mechanical or noninvasive ventilation (MV/NIV), death, and a composite of death or MV/NIV were secondary endpoints. Of 138 patients included, 27 (19.6%) were immunosuppressed (IS) and 95 (68.8%) were male, with a median (IQR) age of 68 (54-78) years. A significantly lower proportion of IS patients (25.9%) compared to non-IS patients (52.3%) developed moderate-severe ARDS, in both unadjusted (0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.83; p = .017) and adjusted (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; p = .019) analyses. After stratifying by pathologies, only IS patients with autoimmune diseases remained significant (aOR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.98; p = .046). Nonsignificant trends toward a longer time to moderate or severe ARDS, a lower need for MV/NIV, and a lower risk of death or MV/NIV were detected among IS. In our cohort of COVID-19 patients, nonsevere immunosuppression was associated with a lower risk of moderate-severe ARDS, especially among AD. This suggests a potential protective effect from a hypothesized hyper-inflammatory response.

Heart failure in COVID-19 patients: prevalence, incidence and prognostic implications.

AIMS: Data on the impact of COVID-19 in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients and its potential to trigger acute heart failure (AHF) are lacking. The aim of this work was to study characteristics, cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and a prior diagnosis of heart failure (HF). Further aims included the identification of predictors and prognostic implications for AHF decompensation during hospital admission and the determination of a potential correlation between the withdrawal of HF guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and worse outcomes during hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data for a total of 3080 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and follow-up of at least 30 days were analysed. Patients with a previous history of CHF (n = 152, 4.9%) were more prone to the development of AHF (11.2% vs. 2.1%; P < 0.001) and had higher levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide. In addition, patients with previous CHF had higher mortality rates (48.7% vs. 19.0%; P < 0.001). In contrast, 77 patients (2.5%) were diagnosed with AHF, which in the vast majority of cases (77.9%) developed in patients without a history of HF. Arrhythmias during hospital admission and CHF were the main predictors of AHF. Patients developing AHF had significantly higher mortality (46.8% vs. 19.7%; P < 0.001). Finally, the withdrawal of beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was associated with a significant increase in in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 have a significant incidence of AHF, which is associated with very high mortality rates. Moreover, patients with a history of CHF are prone to developing acute decompensation after a COVID-19 diagnosis. The withdrawal of GDMT was associated with higher mortality.