Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
1.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1703-1712, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525396

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Aspirin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyridones/therapeutic use , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aspirin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/administration & dosage , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Pyridones/administration & dosage , Pyridones/adverse effects
2.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1703-1712, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1460106

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Aspirin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyridones/therapeutic use , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aspirin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/administration & dosage , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Pyridones/administration & dosage , Pyridones/adverse effects
3.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1013-1023, 2021 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441906

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Carbon Dioxide/blood , Extracorporeal Circulation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Extracorporeal Circulation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Tidal Volume
5.
CMAJ Open ; 9(2): E693-E702, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278708

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Ambulatory Care/methods , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Independent Living/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Preventive Health Services/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index
7.
Calcif Tissue Int ; 109(1): 1-11, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1130753

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Bone Density , Exercise , Musculoskeletal System , Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal , Adult , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Middle Aged , Postmenopause
8.
Circ Heart Fail ; 14(3): e007048, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119347

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Benzhydryl Compounds/therapeutic use , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Glucosides/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Kidney/drug effects , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Stroke Volume/drug effects , Ventricular Function, Left/drug effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Benzhydryl Compounds/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Glucose/drug effects , Blood Glucose/metabolism , COVID-19 , Creatinine/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/physiopathology , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Glucosides/adverse effects , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Humans , Japan , Kidney/physiopathology , Male , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain/blood , Peptide Fragments/blood , Prospective Studies , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/adverse effects , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
9.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed ; 106(4): 438-441, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1032354

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Electrocardiography , Heart Rate , Infant, Premature , Oximetry/instrumentation , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation
10.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(1): 24-31, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-880239

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Blood Gas Analysis , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/physiopathology , Disease Progression , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Fever , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2
11.
JACC Heart Fail ; 8(10): 789-799, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-816609

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Aminobutyrates/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Tetrazoles/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Biphenyl Compounds , COVID-19 , Cardiotonic Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Heart Failure/metabolism , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Heart Transplantation , Heart-Assist Devices , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypotension/chemically induced , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain/metabolism , Pandemics , Peptide Fragments/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke Volume , Valsartan
12.
J Epidemiol Glob Health ; 11(1): 15-19, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-810018

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Information Dissemination , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research Design , Safety Management , COVID-19/epidemiology , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/methods , Ethics , Humans , Information Dissemination/ethics , Information Dissemination/methods , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/ethics , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Research Design/standards , Research Design/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety Management/ethics , Safety Management/standards
13.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 98: 106155, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-778572

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/ethics , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/methods , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/standards , Germany , Global Health , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Organizational Innovation , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Research Design/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Sample Size , Vulnerable Populations
14.
Trials ; 21(1): 765, 2020 Sep 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745677

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Research Design , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Public Opinion , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
15.
World J Urol ; 39(9): 3147-3149, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-743719

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Medical Oncology , Urology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Change Management , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/adverse effects , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/statistics & numerical data , Early Termination of Clinical Trials/trends , Humans , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/trends , Needs Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Urology/methods , Urology/trends , Vulnerable Populations
16.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1317-1329, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739603

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydrocortisone/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/drug therapy , Shock/etiology , Treatment Outcome
17.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1307-1316, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739602

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Administration, Intravenous , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , Brazil , COVID-19 , Catheter-Related Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
18.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1298-1306, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739601

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness , Double-Blind Method , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...