Operational challenges and mitigation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic-Lessons from DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic disruptions in care delivery threaten the operational efficiency and potentially the validity of clinical research efforts, in particular randomized clinical trials. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic affected essentially all aspects of care delivery and clinical research conduct. While consensus statements and clinical guidance documents have detailed potential mitigation measures, few real-world experiences detailing clinical trial adaptations to the COVID-19 pandemic exist, particularly among, large, global registrational cardiovascular trials. METHODS: We outline the operational impact of COVID-19 and resultant mitigation measures in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, one of the largest and most globally diverse experiences with COVID-19 of any cardiovascular clinical trial to date. Specifically, we address the needed coordination between academic investigators, trial leadership, clinical sites, and the supporting sponsor to ensure the safety of participants and trial staff, to maintain the fidelity of trial operations, and to prospectively adapt statistical analyses plans to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and the pandemic at large on trial participants. These discussions included key operational issues such as ensuring delivery of study medications, adaptations to study visits, enhanced COVID-19 related endpoint adjudication, and protocol and analytical plan revisions. CONCLUSION: Our findings may have important implications for establishing consensus on prospective contingency planning in future clinical trials. CLINICALTRIAL: gov: NCT03619213. CLINICALTRIAL: GOV: NCT03619213.

Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic letter system for increasing inFLUenza vaccine uptake (NUDGE-FLU): Study protocol for a nationwide randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Annual influenza vaccination is widely recommended in older adults and other high-risk groups including patients with cardiovascular disease. The real-world effectiveness of influenza vaccination is limited by suboptimal uptake and effective strategies for increasing vaccination rates are therefore needed. The purpose of this trial is to investigate whether behavioral nudges digitally delivered via the Danish nationwide mandatory governmental electronic letter system can increase influenza vaccination uptake among older adults. METHODS: The NUDGE-FLU trial is a randomized implementation trial randomizing all Danish citizens aged 65 years and above without an exemption from the Danish mandatory governmental electronic letter system to receive no digitally delivered behavioral nudge (usual care arm) or to receive one of 9 electronic letters (intervention arms) each leveraging different behavioral science strategies. The trial has randomized 964,870 participants with randomization clustered at the household level (n = 691,820 households). Intervention letters were delivered on September 16, 2022, and follow-up is currently ongoing. All trial data are captured using the nationwide Danish administrative health registries. The primary end point is the receipt of an influenza vaccine on or before January 1, 2023. The secondary end point is time to vaccination. Exploratory end points include clinical events such as hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia, cardiovascular events, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION: The nationwide randomized NUDGE-FLU trial is one of the largest implementation trials ever conducted and will provide important insights into effective communication strategies to maximize vaccination uptake among high-risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05542004, registered September 15, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05542004.

Multi-marker risk assessment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Results from the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: The pathobiology of inflammation, thrombosis, and myocardial injury associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) may be assessed by circulating biomarkers. However, their relative prognostic importance has been incompletely described. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 2020, to April 2021, at 122 US hospitals in the American Heart Association (AHA) COVID-19 cardiovascular (CV) disease registry. Patients with data for D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, natriuretic peptides [NP], or cardiac troponin (cTn) at admission were included. cTn quintiles were indexed to the assay-specific 99th percentile reference limits. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the association between each biomarker by quintile [Q] and odds of in-hospital death and a cardiovascular and thrombotic composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 32,636 registry patients, 26,424 (81%) had admission values for ≥1 of the key biomarkers, of which 4,527 (17%) had admission values for all 5 biomarkers. Each biomarker revealed a significant gradient for in-hospital mortality from Q1 to Q5: D-dimer 14% to 35%, CRP 11%-32%, ferritin 11% to 30%, cTn 13% to 43%, and NPs 7% to 35% (Ptrend for each <.001). After adjustment for other biomarkers and clinical variables, Q5 for NPs (OR:4.67, 95% CI: 3.05-7.14) retained the greatest relative odds for death; cTn (OR:2.68, 95% CI: 2.00-3.59) and NPs (OR:7.14, 95% CI: 4.92-10.37) were associated with the greatest odds of the CV composite. Q5 for D-dimer was associated with the highest risk of thrombotic events (OR: 9.02, 95% CI: 5.36-15.18). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, cTn and NPs identified patients at high risk for an in-hospital adverse cardiovascular outcome, while elevations in D-dimer identified patients at risk for thrombotic complications.

Investigating the Association Between Telemedicine Use and Timely Follow-Up Care After Acute Cardiovascular Hospital Encounters

Background Telemedicine use increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic;however, questions remain as to how telemedicine use impacts care. Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the association of increased telemedicine use on rates of timely follow-up and unplanned readmission after acute cardiovascular hospital encounters. Methods We examined hospital encounters for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia disorders, heart failure (HF), and valvular heart disease from a large U.S., multisite, integrated academic health system among patients with established cardiovascular care within the system. We evaluated 14-day postdischarge follow-up and 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission rates for encounters from the pandemic "steady state” period from May 24, 2020 through December 31, 2020, when telemedicine use was high and compared them to those of encounters from the week-matched period in 2019 (May 26, 2019, through December 31, 2019), adjusting for patient and encounter characteristics. Results The study population included 6,026 hospital encounters. In the pandemic steady-state period, 40% of follow-ups after these encounters were conducted via telemedicine vs 0% during the week-matched period in 2019. Overall, 14-day follow-up rates increased from 41.7% to 44.9% (adjusted difference: +2.0 percentage points [pp], 95% CI: −1.1 to +5.1 pp, P = 0.20). HF encounters experienced the largest improvement from 50.1% to 55.5% (adjusted difference: +6.5 pp, 95% CI: +0.5 to +12.4 pp, P = 0.03). Overall 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission rates fell slightly, from 18.3% to 16.9% (adjusted difference −1.6 pp;95% CI: −4.0 to +0.8 pp, P = 0.20). Conclusions Increased telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with earlier follow-ups, particularly after HF encounters. Readmission rates did not increase, suggesting that the shift to telemedicine did not compromise care quality. Central Illustration

Vaccines, Antibodies and Donors: Varying Attitudes and Policies Surrounding COVID-19 and Heart Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: There are varied opinions in the United States regarding many aspects of care related to COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of health care personnel and the policies of heart transplant centers concerning practices for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in donors and recipients of heart transplants. METHODS: Two anonymous, electronic web-based surveys were developed: 1 was administered to health care personnel through a mailing list maintained by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); another was administered to U.S. medical adult and pediatric heart transplant (HT) program directors. Individual and group e-mails were sent with an embedded link to the respective surveys in February 2022. RESULTS: A total of 176 individuals (8.6%) responded to the survey administered through the HFSA. Of medical directors of transplant programs, 78 (54% response rate) completed a separate survey on their centers' policies. Although 95% (n = 167) of individuals indicated vaccination against COVID-19 should be required prior to HT, only 67% (n = 52) of centers mandated that practice. Similarly, 61% of individuals thought vaccination should be required prior to HT for caregivers, but only 13% of transplant centers mandated caregiver vaccination. Of the centers, 63% reported considering donors despite histories of recent COVID-19 infection (within 3 months), and 47% considered donors with current positive polymerase chain reaction tests. Regarding post-transplant care, only 22% of programs routinely measured antibodies to COVID-19, and 71% used tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) for pre-exposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between individual preferences and centers' practices with respect to COVID-19 management of candidates for and recipients of HT. Additionally, there was wide variation in policies among centers, reflecting the need for further study to inform consistent guidance and recommendations across centers to optimize equitable care for this high-risk patient population.

Epidemiology and Management of ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With COVID-19: A Report From the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

Background Early reports from the COVID-19 pandemic identified coronary thrombosis leading to ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as a complication of COVID-19 infection. However, the epidemiology of STEMI in patients with COVID-19 is not well characterized. We sought to determine the incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and outcomes in STEMI patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods and Results Patients with data on presentation ECG and in-hospital myocardial infarction were identified from January 14, 2020 to November 30, 2020, from 105 sites participating in the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry. Patient characteristics, resource use, and clinical outcomes were summarized and compared based on the presence or absence of STEMI. Among 15 621 COVID-19 hospitalizations, 54 (0.35%) patients experienced in-hospital STEMI. Among patients with STEMI, the majority (n=40, 74%) underwent transthoracic echocardiography, but only half (n=27, 50%) underwent coronary angiography. Half of all patients with COVID-19 and STEMI (n=27, 50%) did not undergo any form of primary reperfusion therapy. Rates of all-cause shock (47% versus 14%), cardiac arrest (22% versus 4.8%), new heart failure (17% versus 1.4%), and need for new renal replacement therapy (11% versus 4.3%) were multifold higher in patients with STEMI compared with those without STEMI (P<0.050 for all). Rates of in-hospital death were 41% in patients with STEMI, compared with 16% in those without STEMI (P<0.001). Conclusions STEMI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is rare but associated with poor in-hospital outcomes. Rates of coronary angiography and primary reperfusion were low in this population of patients with STEMI and COVID-19. Adaptations of systems of care to ensure timely contemporary treatment for this population are needed.

Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been hypothesized to relate to inflammatory activation. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for COVID-19 across 6 centers in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, identifying patients with vs without acute HF. Acute HF was subclassified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic, based on the absence or presence of prior HF. Clinical features, biomarker profiles and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 901 admissions to an ICU due to COVID-19, 80 (8.9%) had acute HF, including 18 (2.0%) with classic cardiogenic shock (CS) and 37 (4.1%) with vasodilatory CS. The majority (n = 45) were de novo HF presentations. Compared to patients without acute HF, those with acute HF had higher cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide levels and similar inflammatory biomarkers; patients with de novo HF had the highest cardiac troponin levels. Notably, among patients critically ill with COVID-19, illness severity (median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 8 [IQR, 5-10] vs 6 [4-9]; P = 0.025) and mortality rates (43.8% vs 32.4%; P = 0.040) were modestly higher in patients with vs those without acute HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients critically ill with COVID-19, acute HF is distinguished more by biomarkers of myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress than by biomarkers of inflammation.

Relationship Between Myocardial Injury During Index Hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Longer-Term Outcomes.

Background Myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19 is associated with increased mortality during index hospitalization; however, the relationship to long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. This study assessed the relationship between myocardial injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T level) during index hospitalization for COVID-19 and longer-term outcomes. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort of patients who were hospitalized at a single center between March and May 2020 with SARS-CoV-2. Cardiac biomarkers were systematically collected. Outcomes were adjudicated and stratified on the basis of myocardial injury. The study cohort includes 483 patients who had high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T data during their index hospitalization. During index hospitalization, 91 (18.8%) died, 70 (14.4%) had thrombotic complications, and 126 (25.6%) had cardiovascular complications. By 12 months, 107 (22.2%) died. During index hospitalization, 301 (62.3%) had cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T≧14 ng/L); these patients had 28.6%, 32.2%, and 33.2% mortality during index hospitalization, at 6 months, and at 12 months, respectively, compared with 4.1%, 4.9%, and 4.9% mortality for those with low-level positive troponin and 0%, 0%, and 0% for those with undetectable troponin. Of 392 (81.2%) patients who survived the index hospitalization, 94 (24%) had at least 1 readmission within 12 months, of whom 61 (65%) had myocardial injury during the index hospitalization. Of 377 (96%) patients who were alive and had follow-up after the index hospitalization, 211 (56%) patients had a documented, detailed clinical assessment at 6 months. A total of 78 of 211 (37.0%) had ongoing COVID-19-related symptoms; 34 of 211 (16.1%) had neurocognitive decline, 8 of 211 (3.8%) had increased supplemental oxygen requirements, and 42 of 211 (19.9%) had worsening functional status. Conclusions Myocardial injury during index hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with increased mortality and may predict who are more likely to have postacute sequelae of COVID-19. Among patients who survived their index hospitalization, the incremental mortality through 12 months was low, even among troponin-positive patients.

Influenza vaccination: a 'shot' at INVESTing in cardiovascular health.

The link between viral respiratory infection and non-pulmonary organ-specific injury, including cardiac injury, has become increasingly appreciated during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Even prior to the pandemic, however, the association between acute infection with influenza and elevated cardiovascular risk was evident. The recently published results of the NHLBI-funded INfluenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop CardioThoracic Events and Decompensated (INVESTED) trial, a 5200 patient comparative effectiveness study of high-dose vs. standard-dose influenza vaccine to reduce cardiopulmonary events and mortality in a high-risk cardiovascular population, found no difference between strategies. However, the broader implications of influenza vaccine as a strategy to reduce morbidity in high-risk patients remain extremely important, with randomized controlled trial and observational data supporting vaccination in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. Given a favourable risk-benefit profile and widespread availability at generally low cost, we contend that influenza vaccination should remain a centrepiece of cardiovascular risk mitigation and describe the broader context of underutilization of this strategy. Few therapeutics in medicine offer seasonal efficacy from a single administration with generally mild, transient side effects, and exceedingly low rates of serious adverse effects. Infection control measures such as physical distancing, hand washing, and the use of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have already been associated with substantially curtailed incidence of influenza outbreaks across the globe. Appending annual influenza vaccination to these measures represents an important public health and moral imperative.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes among patients with a history of heart failure (HF) hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic comorbidities are common in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with HF may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients with at least 1 HF hospitalization or 2 HF outpatient visits between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, who were subsequently hospitalized between April and September 2020. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and mortality rates were compared between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those hospitalized with other causes. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were identified in HF patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1,212,153 patients with history of HF, 132,312 patients were hospitalized from April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. A total of 23,843 patients (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute HF, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 patients (75.6%) were hospitalized with alternative reasons. Hospitalization with COVID-19 was associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality as compared with hospitalization with acute HF; 24.2% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 died in-hospital compared to 2.6% of those hospitalized with acute HF. This association was strongest in April (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 14.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]:12.25 to 17.12) than in subsequent months (adjusted OR: 10.11; 95% CI: 8.95 to 11.42; pinteraction <0.001). Among patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex (adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.40) and morbid obesity (adjusted OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.46) were associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality, along with age (adjusted OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.42 per 10 years) and admission earlier in the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization.

Conduct of Clinical Trials in the Era of COVID-19: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

Characteristics of clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross sectional analysis.

Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries. RESULTS: A total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: A minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.