Experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee for the RECOVERY trial, a large-scale adaptive platform randomised trial of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: To inform the oversight of future clinical trials during a pandemic, we summarise the experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the Randomised Evaluation of COVID therapy trial (RECOVERY), a large-scale randomised adaptive platform clinical trial of treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the first 24 months of the trial (March 2020 to February 2022), the DMC oversaw accumulating data for 14 treatments in adults (plus 10 in children) involving > 45,000 randomised patients. Five trial aspects key for the DMC in performing its role were: a large committee of members, including some with extensive DMC experience and others who had broad clinical expertise; clear strategic planning, communication, and responsiveness by the trial principal investigators; data collection and analysis systems able to cope with phases of very rapid recruitment and link to electronic health records; an ability to work constructively with regulators (and other DMCs) to address emerging concerns without the need to release unblinded mortality results; and the use of videoconferencing systems that enabled national and international members to meet at short notice and from home during the pandemic when physical meetings were impossible. Challenges included that the first four treatments introduced were effectively 'competing' for patients (increasing pressure to make rapid decisions on each one); balancing the global health imperative to report on findings with the need to maintain confidentiality until the results were sufficiently certain to appropriately inform treatment decisions; and reliably assessing safety, especially for newer agents introduced after the initial wave and in the small numbers of pregnant women and children included. We present a series of case vignettes to illustrate some of the issues and the DMC decision-making related to hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, casirivimab + imdevimab, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVERY's streamlined adaptive platform design, linked to hospital-level and population-level health data, enabled the rapid and reliable assessment of multiple treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The later introduction of factorial assessments increased the trial's efficiency, without compromising the DMC's ability to assess safety and efficacy. Requests for the release of unblinded primary outcome data to regulators at points when data were not mature required significant efforts in communication with the regulators by the DMC to avoid inappropriate early trial termination.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

COVID-19 pandemic and admission rates for and management of acute coronary syndromes in England.

BACKGROUND: Several countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have reported a substantial drop in the number of patients attending the emergency department with acute coronary syndromes and a reduced number of cardiac procedures. We aimed to understand the scale, nature, and duration of changes to admissions for different types of acute coronary syndrome in England and to evaluate whether in-hospital management of patients has been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed data on hospital admissions in England for types of acute coronary syndrome from Jan 1, 2019, to May 24, 2020, that were recorded in the Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care database. Admissions were classified as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), myocardial infarction of unknown type, or other acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina). We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). We calculated the numbers of weekly admissions and procedures undertaken; percentage reductions in weekly admissions and across subgroups were also calculated, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome declined from mid-February, 2020, falling from a 2019 baseline rate of 3017 admissions per week to 1813 per week by the end of March, 2020, a reduction of 40% (95% CI 37-43). This decline was partly reversed during April and May, 2020, such that by the last week of May, 2020, there were 2522 admissions, representing a 16% (95% CI 13-20) reduction from baseline. During the period of declining admissions, there were reductions in the numbers of admissions for all types of acute coronary syndrome, including both STEMI and NSTEMI, but relative and absolute reductions were larger for NSTEMI, with 1267 admissions per week in 2019 and 733 per week by the end of March, 2020, a percent reduction of 42% (95% CI 38-46). In parallel, reductions were recorded in the number of PCI procedures for patients with both STEMI (438 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 346 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 21%, 95% CI 12-29) and NSTEMI (383 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 240 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 37%, 29-45). The median length of stay among patients with acute coronary syndrome fell from 4 days (IQR 2-9) in 2019 to 3 days (1-5) by the end of March, 2020. INTERPRETATION: Compared with the weekly average in 2019, there was a substantial reduction in the weekly numbers of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were admitted to hospital in England by the end of March, 2020, which had been partly reversed by the end of May, 2020. The reduced number of admissions during this period is likely to have resulted in increases in out-of-hospital deaths and long-term complications of myocardial infarction and missed opportunities to offer secondary prevention treatment for patients with coronary heart disease. The full extent of the effect of COVID-19 on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome will continue to be assessed by updating these analyses. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.