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.

Effect of Colchicine vs Usual Care Alone on Intubation and 28-Day Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.

The hidden interplay between sex and COVID-19 mortality: the role of cardiovascular calcification.

Recent clinical and demographical studies on COVID-19 patients have demonstrated that men experience worse outcomes than women. However, in most cases, the data were not stratified according to gender, limiting the understanding of the real impact of gender on outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the disaggregated in-hospital outcomes and explore the possible interactions between gender and cardiovascular calcifications. Data was derived from the sCORE-COVID-19 registry, an Italian multicentre registry that enrolled COVID-19 patients who had undergone a chest computer tomography scan on admission. A total of 1683 hospitalized patients (mean age 67±14 years) were included. Men had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities, a higher pneumonia extension, more coronary calcifications (63% vs.50.9%, p<0.001), and a higher coronary calcium score (391±847 vs. 171±479 mm3, p<0.001). Men experienced a significantly higher mortality rate (24.4% vs. 17%, p=0.001), but the death event tended to occur earlier in women (15±7 vs. 8±7 days, p= 0.07). Non-survivors had a higher coronary, thoracic aorta, and aortic valve calcium score. Female sex, a known independent predictor of a favorable outcome in SARS-CoV2 infection, was not protective in women with a coronary calcification volume greater than 100 mm3. There were significant differences in cardiovascular comorbidities and vascular calcifications between men and women with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia. The differences in outcomes can be at least partially explained by the different cardiovascular profiles. However, women with poor outcomes had the same coronary calcific burden as men. The presumed favorable female sex bias in COVID-19 must therefore be reviewed in the context of comorbidities, especially cardiovascular ones.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Prescription Appropriateness at Hospital Discharge: Experience with COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are often elderly, with comorbidities, and receiving polypharmacy, all of which are known factors for potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of DDIs and PIMs in COVID-19 patients at hospital discharge. METHOD: Patients with a proven diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who were hospitalized between 21 February and 30 April 2020, treated with at least two drugs, and with available information regarding pharmacological treatments upon admission and at discharge were considered. The appropriateness of drug prescriptions was assessed using INTERcheck®. RESULTS: A significant increase in the prescription of proton pump inhibitors and heparins was found when comparing admission with hospital discharge (from 24 to 33% [p < 0.05] and from 1 to 17% [p < 0.01], respectively). The increased prescription of heparins at discharge resulted in a highly significant increase in the potentially severe DDIs mediated by this class of drugs. 51% of COVID-19 patients aged > 65 years had at least one PIM upon admission, with an insignificant increment at discharge (58%). CONCLUSION: An increased number of prescribed drugs was observed in COVID-19 patients discharged from our hospital. The addition of heparins is appropriate according to the current literature, while the use of proton pump inhibitors is more controversial. Particular attention should be paid to the risk of bleeding complications linked to heparin-based DDIs.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Prescription Appropriateness in Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis from a Reference Hospital in Northern Italy.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalised with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19)] infection are frequently older with co-morbidities and receiving polypharmacy, all of which are known risk factors for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The pharmacological burden may be further aggravated by the addition of treatments for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of potential DDIs upon admission and during hospitalisation in patients with COVID-19 treated at our hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 502 patients with COVID-19 (mean age 61 ± 16 years, range 15-99) treated at our hospital with a proven diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalised between 21 February and 30 April 2020 and treated with at least two drugs. RESULTS: Overall, 68% of our patients with COVID-19 were exposed to at least one potential DDI, and 55% were exposed to at least one potentially severe DDI. The proportion of patients experiencing potentially severe DDIs increased from 22% upon admission to 80% during hospitalisation. Furosemide, amiodarone and quetiapine were the main drivers of potentially severe DDIs upon admission, and hydroxychloroquine and particularly lopinavir/ritonavir were the main drivers during hospitalisation. The majority of potentially severe DDIs carried an increased risk of cardiotoxicity. No potentially severe DDIs were identified in relation to tocilizumab and remdesivir. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalised patients with COVID-19, concomitant treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine led to a dramatic increase in the number of potentially severe DDIs. Given the high risk of cardiotoxicity and the scant and conflicting data concerning their efficacy in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection, the use of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19 with polypharmacy needs to be carefully considered.