Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19: The ACTIV-4B Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Patient Preparedness for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: A Randomized Equivalence Trial of Preoperative Counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative counseling can affect postoperative outcomes and satisfaction. We hypothesized that patient preparedness would be equivalent after preoperative counseling phone calls versus preoperative counseling office visits before prolapse surgery. METHODS: This was an equivalence randomized controlled trial of women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Participants were randomized to receive standardized counseling via a preoperative phone call or office visit. The primary outcome was patient preparedness measured on a 5-point Likert scale by the Patient Preparedness Questionnaire at the postoperative visit. A predetermined equivalence margin of 20% was used. Two 1-sided tests for equivalence were used for the primary outcome. RESULTS: We randomized 120 women. The study was concluded early because of COVID-19 and subsequent surgery cancellations. There were 85 participants with primary outcome data (43 offices, 42 phones). Mean age was 62.0 years (±1.0) and 64 (75.3%) had stage III or stage IV prolapse. The primary outcome, patient preparedness measured at the postoperative visit, was equivalent between groups (office, n = 43 [97.7%]; phone, n = 42 [97.6%], P < 0.001). Most women reported they would have preferred a phone call (n = 66, 65.5%) with more women in the phone group expressing this preference than the office group (office 40.5% vs phone 90.5%, P < 0.001). Ultimately, nearly all women (96.5%) were satisfied with their method of counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative counseling phone calls were equivalent to office visits for patient preparedness for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. This study demonstrates patient acceptance of phone calls for preoperative counseling. Telehealth modalities should be considered as an option for preoperative patient counseling.

Effect of Lower Tidal Volume Ventilation Facilitated by Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal vs Standard Care Ventilation on 90-Day Mortality in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The REST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.

Assessing the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as outpatient treatment of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Identification of therapies to prevent severe COVID-19 remains a priority. We sought to determine whether hydroxychloroquine treatment for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could prevent hospitalization, mechanical ventilation or death. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in Alberta during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic without direct contact with participants. Community-dwelling individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] viral ribonucleic acid test) within the previous 4 days, and symptom onset within the previous 12 days, were randomly assigned to oral hydroxychloroquine or matching placebo for 5 days. Enrolment began Apr. 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration and disposition at 30 days. Safety outcomes, such as serious adverse events and mortality, were also ascertained. Outcomes were determined by telephone follow-up and administrative data. RESULTS: Among 4919 individuals with a positive RT-PCR test, 148 (10.2% of a planned 1446 patients) were randomly assigned, 111 to hydroxychloroquine and 37 to placebo. Of the 148 participants, 24 (16.2%) did not start the study drug. Four participants in the hydroxychloroquine group met the primary outcome (4 hospitalizations, 0 mechanical ventilation, 4 survived to 30 days) and none in the placebo group. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce symptom duration (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.21). Recruitment was paused on May 22, 2020, when a since-retracted publication raised concerns about the safety of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Although we had not identified concerns in a safety review, enrolment was slower than expected among those eligible for the study, and cases within the community were decreasing. Recruitment goals were deemed to be unattainable and the trial was not resumed, resulting in a study underpowered to assess the effect of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and safety. INTERPRETATION: There was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine reduced symptom duration or prevented severe outcomes among outpatients with proven COVID-19, but the early termination of our study meant that it was underpowered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04329611.

Detraining Effects on Musculoskeletal Parameters in Early Postmenopausal Osteopenic Women: 3-Month Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled ACTLIFE Study.

Periods of absence from supervised group exercise while maintaining physical activity might be a frequent pattern in adults' exercise habits. The aim of the present study was to determine detraining effects on musculoskeletal outcomes after a 3-month detraining period in early post-menopausal, osteopenic women. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we terminated the 18-month randomized controlled ACTLIFE exercise intervention immediately after the 13-month follow-up assessment. This put an abrupt stop to the high-intensity aerobic and resistance group exercise sessions undertaken three times per week by the exercise group (EG: n = 27) and the gentle exercise program performed once per week for the attention control group (CG: n = 27); but both groups were permitted to conduct individual outdoor activity for the 3-month lock-down period. Study endpoints were lean body mass (LBM), bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS), maximum hip-/leg extension strength and power. Detraining-induced reductions of LBM, hip/leg strength and power (but not BMD-LS) were significantly greater (p < 0.001 to p = 0.044) compared with the CG. Significant exercise effects, i.e. differences between EG and CG, present after 13 months of exercise, were lost after 3 months of detraining for LBM (p = 0.157) and BMD-LS (p = 0.065), but not for strength (p < 0.001) and power (p < 0.001). Of note, self-reported individual outdoor activities and exercise increased by about 40% in both groups during the lock-down period. Three months' absence from a supervised group exercise protocol resulted in considerable detraining effects for musculoskeletal parameters. Thus, exercise programs for adults should be continuous rather than intermittent.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04420806, 06.05.2020.

Effect of Empagliflozin as an Add-On Therapy on Decongestion and Renal Function in Patients With Diabetes Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. We sought to elucidate the effect of empagliflozin as an add-on therapy on decongestion and renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes admitted for acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: The study was terminated early due to COVID-19 pandemic. We enrolled 59 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes admitted for acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either empagliflozin add-on (n=30) or conventional glucose-lowering therapy (n=29). We performed laboratory tests at baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days after randomization. Percent change in plasma volume between admission and subsequent time points was calculated using the Strauss formula. RESULTS: There were no significant baseline differences in left ventricular ejection fraction and serum NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), hematocrit, or serum creatinine levels between the 2 groups. Seven days after randomization, NT-proBNP level was significantly lower in the empagliflozin group than in the conventional group (P=0.040), and hemoconcentration (≥3% absolute increase in hematocrit) was more frequently observed in the empagliflozin group than in the conventional group (P=0.020). The decrease in percent change in plasma volume between baseline and subsequent time points was significantly larger in the empagliflozin group than in the conventional group 7 days after randomization (P=0.017). The incidence of worsening renal function (an increase in serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dL) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, empagliflozin achieved effective decongestion without an increased risk of worsening renal function as an add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes with acute decompensated heart failure. Registration: URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm; Unique identifier: UMIN000026315.

Randomised study of heart rate measurement in preterm newborns with ECG plus pulse oximetry versus oximetry alone.

AIM: To determine whether the IntelliVue monitor (ECG plus Masimo pulse oximeter (PO)) displays heart rate (HR) at birth more quickly than Nellcor PO (PO alone) among infants of 29-35 weeks' gestational age. METHODS: Unmasked parallel group randomised (1:1) study. RESULTS: We planned to enrol 100 infants; however, the study was terminated due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 39 infants had been enrolled (17 randomised to IntelliVue, 22 to Nellcor). We found no differences between the groups in the time to first HR display (median (IQR) IntelliVue ECG 49 (33, 71) vs Nellcor 47 (37, 86) s, p>0.999), in the proportion who had a face mask applied for breathing support, or in the time at which it was applied. Infants monitored with IntelliVue were handled more frequently and for longer. CONCLUSION: IntelliVue ECG did not display HR more quickly than Nellcor PO in preterm infants. We found no differences in the rate of or time to intervention between groups. Our study was terminated early so these findings should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16473881.

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Standard Care on Clinical Worsening in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. Interventions: Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. Results: A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and Pao2/Fio2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04346355; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-001386-37.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).

Pride and Prejudice during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Misfortune of Inappropriate Clinical Trial Design.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly evolving global pandemic for which more than a thousand clinical trials have been registered to secure therapeutic effectiveness, expeditiously. Most of these are single-center non-randomized studies rather than multi-center, randomized controlled trials. Single-arm trials have several limitations and may be conducted when spontaneous improvement is not anticipated, small placebo effect exists, and randomization to a placebo is not ethical. In an emergency where saving lives takes precedence, it is ethical to conduct trials with any scientifically proven design, however, safety must not be compromised. A phase II or III trial can be conducted directly in a pandemic with appropriate checkpoints and stopping rules. COVID-19 has two management paradigms- antivirals, or treatment of its complications. Simultaneous assessment of two different treatments can be done using 2 × 2 factorial schema. World Health Organization's SOLIDARITY trial is a classic example of the global research protocol which can evaluate the preferred treatment to combat COVID-19 pandemic. Short of that, a trial design must incorporate the practicality of the intervention used, and an appropriate primary endpoint which should ideally be a clinical outcome. Collaboration between institutions is needed more than ever to successfully execute and accrue in randomized trials.

COVID-19 hits a trial: Arguments against hastily deviating from the plan.

The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted the conduct of clinical trials. While initially preparing for a period of time, where it would likely be impossible to supervise trials in the usual way and precautionary measures had to be implemented to care for medication supply and general safety of study participants it is now important to consider, how the impact of the pandemic on trial outcome can be assessed, which measures are needed to decide, how to proceed with the trial and what is needed to compensate to irregularity introduced by the pandemic situation. Obviously not all trials will suffer to the same degree: some trials may be close to finalizing recruitment, others may not yet have started. Similarly not all clinical trials investigate vulnerable patient populations, but some will and may in addition have recruited to an extent that beneficial effects achieved in the initial phase of the trial may be outweighed by an increase e.g. in mortality that impacts both treatment groups. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the pandemic reached different countries in the world and even cities in one country at different points in time with different severity. Our example is a randomized and double-blind clinical trial comparing digitoxin and placebo in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. This trial has recruited roughly 1/3 of the overall 2200 patients when the disease outbreak reached Germany. We discuss how simulations and theoretical considerations can be used to address questions about the need to increase the overall sample-size to be recruited to compensate for a potential shrinkage of the treatment effect caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and what role the degree of consistency could play when comparing pre-, during- and post- COVID-19 periods of trial conduct regarding the question, whether the treatment effect can be considered consistent and with this generalizable. This is dependent on the size of the treatment effect and the impact of the pandemic. We argue, that in case of doubt, it may be wise to proceed with the original study plan.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt.

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical trials in urological oncology: COVID-19 and the potential need for a new perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension, termination or alteration of thousands of clinical trials as the health emergency escalated globally. Whilst the rapid suspension of certain clinical trials was necessary to ensure the safety of high-risk or vulnerable trial participants as well as healthcare workers, the long-term ramifications that this delay will have on the field of urologic oncology is unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to plan for and implement new strategies to advance our understanding of unmet areas of need in urologic oncology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension, termination or alteration of thousands of clinical trials as the health emergency escalated globally. Whilst the rapid suspension of certain clinical trials was necessary to ensure the safety of high-risk or vulnerable trial participants as well as healthcare workers, the long-term ramifications that this delay will have on the field of urologic oncology is unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to plan for and implement new strategies to advance our understanding of unmet areas of need in urologic oncology.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients. Objective: To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients. Interventions: Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. Results: A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on 21-Day Mortality or Respiratory Support Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option. Objective: To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay. Results: The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% [95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%]; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.