Renin-Angiotensin System Modulation With Synthetic Angiotensin (1-7) and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor-Biased Ligand in Adults With COVID-19: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

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.

Patient Onboarding and Engagement to Build a Digital Study After Enrollment in a Clinical Trial (TAILOR-PCI Digital Study): Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: The Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes Due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (TAILOR-PCI) Digital Study is a novel proof-of-concept study that evaluated the feasibility of extending the TAILOR-PCI randomized controlled trial (RCT) follow-up period by using a remote digital platform. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe patients' onboarding, engagement, and results in a digital study after enrollment in an RCT. METHODS: In this intervention study, previously enrolled TAILOR-PCI patients in the United States and Canada within 24 months of randomization were invited by letter to download the study app. Those who did not respond to the letter were contacted by phone to survey the reasons for nonparticipation. A direct-to-patient digital research platform (the Eureka Research Platform) was used to onboard patients, obtain consent, and administer activities in the digital study. The patients were asked to complete health-related surveys and digitally provide follow-up data. Our primary end points were the consent rate, the duration of participation, and the monthly activity completion rate in the digital study. The hypothesis being tested was formulated before data collection began. RESULTS: After the parent trial was completed, letters were mailed to 907 eligible patients (representing 18.8% [907/4837] of total enrolled in the RCT) within 15.6 (SD 5.2) months of randomization across 24 sites. Among the 907 patients invited, 290 (32%) visited the study website and 110 (12.1%) consented-40.9% (45/110) after the letter, 33.6% (37/110) after the first phone call, and 25.5% (28/110) after the second call. Among the 47.4% (409/862) of patients who responded, 41.8% (171/409) declined to participate because of a lack of time, 31.2% (128/409) declined because of the lack of a smartphone, and 11.5% (47/409) declined because of difficulty understanding what was expected of them in the study. Patients who consented were older (aged 65.3 vs 62.5 years; P=.006) and had a lower prevalence of diabetes (19% vs 30%; P=.02) or tobacco use (6.4% vs 24.8%; P<.001). A greater proportion had bachelor's degrees (47.2% vs 25.7%; P<.001) and were more computer literate (90.5% vs 62.3% of daily internet use; P<.001) than those who did not consent. The average completion rate of the 920 available monthly electronic visits was 64.9% (SD 7.6%); there was no decrease in this rate throughout the study duration. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up after enrollment in an RCT by using a digital study was technically feasible but was limited because of the inability to contact most eligible patients or a lack of time or access to a smartphone. Among the enrolled patients, most completed the required electronic visits. Enhanced recruitment methods, such as the introduction of a digital study at the time of RCT consent, smartphone provision, and robust study support for onboarding, should be explored further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT01742117; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01742117.

Use of pragmatic and explanatory trial designs in acute care research: lessons from COVID-19.

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

Chasing the storm: Recruiting non-hospitalized patients for a multi-site randomized controlled trial in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard to evaluate clinical interventions, producing the highest level of evidence while minimizing potential bias. Inadequate recruitment is a commonly encountered problem that undermines the completion and generalizability of RCTs-and is even more challenging when enrolling amidst a pandemic. Here, we reflect on our experiences with virtual recruitment of non-hospitalized patients in the United States for ColCorona, an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drug trial. Recruitment challenges during a pandemic include constraints created by shelter-in-place policies and targeting enrollment according to national and local fluctuations in infection rate. Presenting a study to potential participants who are sick with COVID-19 and may be frightened, overwhelmed, or mistrusting of clinical research remains a challenge. Strategies previously reported to improve recruitment include transparency, patient and site education, financial incentives, and person-to-person outreach. Active measures taken during ColCorona to optimize United States recruitment involved rapid expansion of sites, adjustment of recruitment scripts, assessing telephone calls versus text messages for initial contact with participants, institutional review board-approved financial compensation, creating an infrastructure to systematically identify potentially eligible patients, partnering with testing sites, appealing to both self-interest and altruism, and large-scale media efforts with varying degrees of success.

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.