Effect of P2Y12 Inhibitors on Organ Support-Free Survival in Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Platelet activation is a potential therapeutic target in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effect of P2Y12 inhibition among critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, open-label, adaptive platform, 1:1 randomized clinical trial included critically ill (requiring intensive care-level support) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled between February 26, 2021, through June 22, 2022. Enrollment was discontinued on June 22, 2022, by the trial leadership in coordination with the study sponsor given a marked slowing of the enrollment rate of critically ill patients. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a P2Y12 inhibitor or no P2Y12 inhibitor (usual care) for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death and, for participants who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results: At the time of trial termination, 949 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [46-65] years; 603 male [63.5%]) had been randomly assigned, 479 to the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 470 to usual care. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 372 participants (78.8%) and clopidogrel in 100 participants (21.2%). The estimated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the effect of P2Y12 inhibitor on organ support-free days was 1.07 (95% credible interval, 0.85-1.33). The posterior probability of superiority (defined as an OR > 1.0) was 72.9%. Overall, 354 participants (74.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 339 participants (72.4%) in the usual care group survived to hospital discharge (median AOR, 1.15; 95% credible interval, 0.84-1.55; posterior probability of superiority, 80.8%). Major bleeding occurred in 13 participants (2.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 13 (2.8%) in the usual care group. The estimated mortality rate at 90 days for the P2Y12 inhibitor group was 25.5% and for the usual care group was 27.0% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = .77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of critically ill participants hospitalized for COVID-19, treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor did not improve the number of days alive and free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. The use of the P2Y12 inhibitor did not increase major bleeding compared with usual care. These data do not support routine use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

Defibrotide Therapy for SARS-CoV-2 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS is associated with endothelial dysfunction and profound dysregulation of the thrombotic-fibrinolytic pathway. Defibrotide is a polyanionic compound with fibrinolytic, antithrombotic, and antiinflammatory properties. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the safety and tolerability of defibrotide in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We report a prospective, open-label, single-center safety trial of defibrotide for the management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. Eligible participants were 18 years of age or older with clinical and radiographic signs of ARDS, no signs of active bleeding, a serum D-dimer of more than twice upper limit of normal, and positive polymerase chain reaction-based results for SARS-CoV-2. Defibrotide (6.25 mg/kg/dose IV q6h) was administered for a planned 7-day course, with serum D-dimer levels and respiratory function monitored daily during therapy. RESULTS: Twelve patients (median age, 63 years) were treated, with 10 patients receiving mechanical ventilation and 6 receiving vasopressor support at study entry. The median D-dimer was 3.25 µg/ml (range, 1.33-12.3) at study entry. The median duration of therapy was 7 days. No hemorrhagic or thrombotic complications occurred during therapy. No other adverse events attributable to defibrotide were noted. Four patients met the day 7 pulmonary response parameter, all four showing a decrease in serum D-dimer levels within the initial 72 h of defibrotide therapy. Three patients died of progressive pulmonary disease 11, 17, and 34 days after study entry. Nine patients (75%) remain alive 64 to 174 days after initiation of defibrotide. Day 30 all-cause mortality was 17% (95% CI, 0%-35%). All patients with a baseline Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 125 mm Hg survived, whereas the three patients with a baseline Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of < 125 mm Hg died. INTERPRETATION: The use of defibrotide for management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS proved safe and tolerable. No hemorrhagic or thrombotic complications were reported during therapy, with promising outcomes in a patient population with a historically high mortality rate. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04530604; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Clinical Trial Oversight at a Major Academic Medical Center: Approach of Michigan Medicine.

Clinicians, eager to offer the best care in the absence of guiding data, have provided patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diverse clinical interventions. This usage has led to perceptions of efficacy of some interventions that, while receiving media coverage, lack robust evidence. Moving forward, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to ensure that clinicians can treat patients effectively during this outbreak and the next. To do so, academic medical centers must address 2 key research issues: (1) how to effectively and efficiently determine which trials have the best chance of benefiting current and future patients and (2) how to establish a transparent and ethical process for subject recruitment while maintaining research integrity and without overburdening patients or staff. We share here the current methods used by Michigan Medicine to address these issues.

Propofol-Associated Hypertriglyceridemia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Versus Noncoronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the incidence and characteristics of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in coronavirus disease 2019 versus noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Single-center prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Medical ICU and regional infectious containment unit. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome admitted from April 7, 2020, to May 15, 2020, requiring continuous propofol administration. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 50 patients enrolled, 54% had coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 35.5 (interquartile range, 30.2-41) and 8 (interquartile range, 6-9). Pao2/Fio2 ratio was 130.5 (interquartile range, 94.5-193.8). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride ≥ 500 mg/dL) than noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (9 [33.3%] vs 1 [4.3%]; p = 0.014). Those with coronavirus disease 2019, compared with those without, received more propofol prior to becoming hypertriglyceridemic (median, 5,436.0 mg [interquartile range, 3,405.5-6,845.5 mg] vs 4,229.0 mg [interquartile range, 2,083.4-4,972.1 mg]; p = 0.027). After adjustment for propofol dose with logistic regression (odds ratio, 5.97; 95% CI, 1.16-59.57; p = 0.031) and propensity score matching (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.27-149.12; p = 0.025), there remained a significant difference in the development of hypertriglyceridemia between coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. There was no difference between groups in time to hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.063). Serum lipase was not different between those who did or did not develop hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.545). No patients experienced signs or symptoms of pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia than noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, even after accounting for differences in propofol administration.