Effect of nuts on lipid profile and inflammatory biomarkers in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nut-enriched diets are related to improve lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in meta-analyses in the context of primary cardiovascular prevention. However, primary studies on secondary cardiovascular prevention are scarce and controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of nut supplementation on lipid and inflammatory profiles in individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and the frequency of adverse events. METHODS: Six databases were used for research: PubMed, EMBASE, BVS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov, until February 2023, with no language restrictions. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compare nut-enriched diets vs. control diets for pre-post intervention changes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessed the evidence's certainty. RESULTS: From the 5187 records identified, eight publications containing data referring to five randomized clinical trials involving 439 participants were included in the final analyses. The nuts evaluated were almonds, pecans, Brazil nuts, and mixed nuts, with doses ranging between 5 g and 85 g (median: 30 g/day). The intervention time varied between 6 and 12 weeks. Compared to nut-free diets, nut intake did not have a statistically significant effect on lipid profile biomarkers, except on the atherogenic index (MD: -0.32 [95% CI -0.58 to -0.06], I2 = 0% - moderate certainty of the evidence). Similarly, there was no effect of nuts on inflammatory profile biomarkers. It was not possible to aggregate data on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Nut supplementation did not change lipid and inflammatory profiles in the secondary cardiovascular prevention setting.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Effect of Nuts on Anthropometric and Glycemic Indexes and Blood Pressure in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

CONTEXT: Nut-enriched diets have a positive impact on cardiovascular risk factors, such as body mass, blood pressure, and fasting blood glucose. However, studies in individuals undergoing secondary cardiovascular prevention show controversial results. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis assessed the effect of nut supplementation on anthropometric, glycemic, and blood pressure indices in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as the frequency of adverse events. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were used for the search-PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, BVS (Biblioteca Virtual da Saude), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov-until February 2023, with no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Setting/design) strategy were used. Seven independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and resolution of disagreements. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. DATA ANALYSIS: From 5187 records identified, 6 publications containing data referring to 5 randomized clinical trials (n = 436) were included in the final analyses. The nuts evaluated were almonds, pecans, Brazil nuts, and mixed nuts, with portions that varied between 5 g and 85 g (median: 30 g/day). The intervention period varied between 6 and 12 weeks. The nuts had no effect on fasting glucose and anthropometric indices, although the certainty of the evidence for most of these outcomes was low or very low. They also had no effect on systolic (mean difference [MD]: -1.16 mmHg [95% CI, -5.68 to 3.35], I2 = 0%-moderate certainty of evidence) or diastolic (MD: 0.10 mmHg [95% CI, -2.30 to 2.51], I2 = 0%-high certainty of evidence) blood pressure. It was not possible to aggregate data on adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nut supplementation had no effect on blood pressure, fasting glucose, or anthropometric profile in the context of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020163456.

Randomized trial of effect of bariatric surgery on blood pressure after 5 years

BACKGROUND: Obesity represents a major obstacle for controlling hypertension, the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on hypertension control and remission. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial with subjects with obesity grade 1 or 2 plus hypertension using at least 2 medications. We excluded subjects with previous cardiovascular events and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Subjects were assigned to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) combined with medical therapy (MT) or MT alone. We reassessed the original primary outcome (reduction of at least 30% of the total antihypertensive medications while maintaining blood pressure levels <140/90 mm Hg) at 5 years. The main analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 100 subjects were included (76% women, age 43.8 ± 9.2 years, body mass index: 36.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2). At 5 years, body mass index was 36.40 kg/m2 (95% CI: 35.28-37.52 kg/m2) for MT and 28.01 kg/m2 (95% CI: 26.95-29.08 kg/m2) for RYGB (P < 0.001). Compared with MT, RYGB promoted a significantly higher rate of number of medications reduction (80.7% vs 13.7%; relative risk: 5.91; 95% CI: 2.58-13.52; P < 0.001) and the mean number of antihypertensive medications was 2.97 (95% CI: 2.33-3.60) for MT and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.51-1.09) for RYGB (P < 0.001). The rates of hypertension remission were 2.4% vs 46.9% (relative risk: 19.66; 95% CI: 2.74-141.09; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis considering only completed cases revealed consistent results. Interestingly, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower after RYGB (0% vs 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery represents an effective and durable strategy to control hypertension and related polypharmacy in subjects with obesity. (GAstric bypass to Treat obEse Patients With steAdy hYpertension [GATEWAY]; NCT01784848).

Multifaceted Strategy Based on Automated Text Messaging After a Recent Heart Failure Admission: The MESSAGE-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Readmissions after an index heart failure (HF) hospitalization are a major contemporary health care problem. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an intensive telemonitoring strategy in the vulnerable period after an HF hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 30 HF clinics in Brazil. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% and access to mobile phones were enrolled up to 30 days after an HF admission. Data were collected from July 2019 to July 2022. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to a telemonitoring strategy or standard care. The telemonitoring group received 4 daily short message service text messages to optimize self-care, active engagement, and early intervention. Red flags based on feedback messages triggered automatic diuretic adjustment and/or a telephone call from the health care team. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to 180 days. A hierarchical win-ratio analysis incorporating blindly adjudicated clinical events (cardiovascular deaths and HF hospitalization) and variation in NT-proBNP was also performed. Results: Of 699 included patients, 460 (65.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 61.2 (14.5) years. A total of 352 patients were randomly assigned to the telemonitoring strategy and 347 to standard care. Satisfaction with the telemonitoring strategy was excellent (net promoting score at 180 days, 78.5). HF self-care increased significantly in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (score difference at 30 days, -2.21; 95% CI, -3.67 to -0.74; P = .001; score difference at 180 days, -2.08; 95% CI, -3.59 to -0.57; P = .004). Variation of NT-proBNP was similar in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (telemonitoring: baseline, 2593 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2314-2923; 180 days, 1313 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1117-1543; standard care: baseline, 2396 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2122-2721; 180 days, 1319 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1114-1564; ratio of change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P = .39). Hierarchical analysis of the composite outcome demonstrated a similar number of wins in both groups (telemonitoring, 49 883 of 122 144 comparisons [40.8%]; standard care, 48 034 of 122 144 comparisons [39.3%]; win ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: An intensive telemonitoring strategy applied in the vulnerable period after an HF admission was feasible, well-accepted, and increased scores of HF self-care but did not translate to reductions in NT-proBNP levels nor improvement in a composite hierarchical clinical outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04062461.

Multifaceted strategy based on automated text messaging after a recent heart failure admission: the MESSAGE-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Readmissions after an index heart failure (HF) hospitalization are a major contemporary health care problem. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an intensive telemonitoring strategy in the vulnerable period after an HF hospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 30 HF clinics in Brazil. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% and access to mobile phones were enrolled up to 30 days after an HF admission. Data were collected from July 2019 to July 2022. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to a telemonitoring strategy or standard care. The telemonitoring group received 4 daily short message service text messages to optimize self-care, active engagement, and early intervention. Red flags based on feedback messages triggered automatic diuretic adjustment and/or a telephone call from the health care team. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to 180 days. A hierarchical win-ratio analysis incorporating blindly adjudicated clinical events (cardiovascular deaths and HF hospitalization) and variation in NT-proBNP was also performed. RESULTS: Of 699 included patients, 460 (65.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 61.2 (14.5) years. A total of 352 patients were randomly assigned to the telemonitoring strategy and 347 to standard care. Satisfaction with the telemonitoring strategy was excellent (net promoting score at 180 days, 78.5). HF self-care increased significantly in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (score difference at 30 days, -2.21; 95% CI, -3.67 to -0.74; P = .001; score difference at 180 days, -2.08; 95% CI, -3.59 to -0.57; P = .004). Variation of NT-proBNP was similar in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (telemonitoring: baseline, 2593 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2314-2923; 180 days, 1313 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1117-1543; standard care: baseline, 2396 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2122-2721; 180 days, 1319 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1114-1564; ratio of change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P = .39). Hierarchical analysis of the composite outcome demonstrated a similar number of wins in both groups (telemonitoring, 49 883 of 122 144 comparisons [40.8%]; standard care, 48 034 of 122 144 comparisons [39.3%]; win ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26). CONCLUSIONS and relevance: An intensive telemonitoring strategy applied in the vulnerable period after an HF admission was feasible, well-accepted, and increased scores of HF self-care but did not translate to reductions in NT-proBNP levels nor improvement in a composite hierarchical clinical outcome.

Shorter History of Hypertension as a Predictor of Hypertension Remission after 3-years of Bariatric Surgery: Data from the GATEWAY Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence explored predictors of hypertension (HTN) remission after bariatric but data are limited to observational studies and lack of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). This study was aimed to evaluate the rate of HTN remission after bariatric surgery using ABPM and to define predictors of mid-term HTN remission. METHODS: We included patients enrolled in the surgical arm of the GATEWAY randomized trial. HTN remission was defined as controlled blood pressure (< 130 × 80 mmHg) evaluated by 24-h ABPM while no need of anti-hypertensive medications after 36 months. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the predictors of HTN remission after 36 months. RESULTS: 46 patients submitted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). HTN remission occurred in 39% (n = 14 out of 36 patients with complete data at 36 months). Patients with HTN remission had shorter HTN history than no remission group (5.9 ± 5.5 vs. 12.5 ± 8.1 years; p = 0.01). The baseline insulin levels were lower in patients who presented HTN remission, although not statistically significant (OR: 0.90; CI 95%: 0.80-0.99; p = 0.07). In the multivariate analysis, the HTN history (years) was the only independent predictor of HTN remission (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; p = 0.04). Therefore, for each additional year of HTN history, the chance of HTN remission decreases by approximately 15% after RYGB. CONCLUSION: After 3 years of RYGB, HTN remission defined by ABPM was common and independently associated with a shorter HTN history. These data underscore the need of early effective approach of obesity aiming greater impact in its comorbidities.

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Attributable mortality due to nosocomial sepsis in Brazilian hospitals: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis. METHODS: Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence. RESULTS: 3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates. CONCLUSION: The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions.

Rivaroxaban in Outpatients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19: Rationale and Design of the Study CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII). / Rivaroxabana em Pacientes Ambulatoriais com COVID-19 Leve ou Moderada: Fundamentação e Desenho do Estudo CARE (CARE ­ Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a high risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events as a consequence of direct viral damage to endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 and a procoagulant milieu due to increased biomarkers, such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII. Although randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapies have been conducted in hospitalized patients, few have evaluated the role of thromboprophylaxis in an outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous or arterial thrombotic events, invasive ventilatory support, and death in COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: The COVID Antithrombotic Rivaroxaban Evaluation (CARE) study, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 14 days or local standard treatment alone to prevent adverse outcomes, is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). The inclusion criteria are adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild or moderate symptoms without indication for hospitalization, within 7 days of symptom onset, and 1 risk factor for COVID-19 complication (> 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases, smoking, immunosuppression, or obesity). The primary composite endpoint, which includes venous thromboembolism, invasive mechanical ventilation, major acute cardiovascular events, and mortality within 30 days of randomization, will be assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. All patients will provide informed consent. A significance level of 5% will be used for all statistical tests. RESULTS: Major thrombotic and bleeding outcomes, hospitalizations, and deaths will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The CARE study will provide relevant and contemporary information about the potential role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.

FUNDAMENTO: Estudos anteriores revelaram alto risco de eventos tromboembólicos arteriais e venosos como consequência de danos virais diretos do SARS-CoV-2 em células endoteliais e um meio procoagulante devido ao aumento de biomarcadores como o D-dímero, fibrinogênio, fator VIII. Foram realizados ensaios controlados randomizados de terapias antitrombóticas em pacientes internados, no entanto, poucos estudos avaliaram o papel da tromboprofilaxia no ambiente ambulatorial. OBJETIVO: Avaliar se a profilaxia antitrombótica com rivaroxabana reduz o risco de eventos trombóticos venosos ou arteriais, suporte ventilatório invasivo e morte em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19. MÉTODOS: O estudo CARE é um ensaio randomizado, aberto, multicêntrico e controlado por rivaroxabana 10 mg uma vez por dia durante 14 dias ou tratamento local padrão isolado, para a prevenção de resultados adversos, registrado no Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). Os critérios de inclusão são adultos com infecção confirmada ou suspeita do SARS-CoV-2, com sintomas leves ou moderados, sem indicação de hospitalização, no prazo de 7 dias após o início dos sintomas e um fator de risco de complicação da COVID-19 (>65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). O desfecho primário composto inclui tromboembolismo venoso, necessidade de ventilação mecânica invasiva, eventos cardiovasculares agudos maiores e mortalidade no prazo de 30 dias após a randomização, sendo avaliado segundo o princípio da intenção de tratar. Todos os pacientes assinaram termo de consentimento. Foi estabelecido um nível de significância de 5% para todos os testes estatísticos. RESULTADOS: Os principais desfechos trombóticos e hemorrágicos, hospitalizações e mortes serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente, sob a condição cega para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. CONCLUSÃO: O estudo CARE fornecerá informação relevante e contemporânea sobre o possível papel da tromboprofilaxia em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients. Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087. Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups. Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less. Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).

Conditional Treatment Effect Analysis of Two Infusion Rates for Fluid Challenges in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) Trial.

Rationale: Optimal infusion rate for fluid challenges in critically ill patients is unknown. A large clinical trial comparing two different infusion rates yielded neutral results. Conditional average treatment effect (CATE) assessment may aid in tailoring therapy. Objectives: To estimate CATE in patients enrolled in the BaSICS trial and to assess the effects of receiving CATE model-recommended treatment in terms of hospital mortality. Methods: Post hoc analysis of the BaSICS trial assessing the effect of two infusion rates for the fluid challenge (fast, 999 ml/h, control group; vs. slow, 333 ml/h, intervention group) on hospital mortality. CATE was estimated as the difference in outcome for treatment arms in counterfactuals obtained from a Bayesian model trained in the first half of the trial adjusted for predictors hypothesized to interact with the intervention. The model recommended slow or fast infusion or made no recommendation in the second half. A threshold greater than 0.90 probability of benefit was considered. Results: A total of 10,465 patients were analyzed. The model was trained in 5,230 patients and tested in 5,235 patients. A recommendation could be made in the test set in 19% of patients (14% were recommended the control group and 5% the treatment group); for 81% of patients, no recommendation could be made. Slow infusion was more frequently recommended in cases of planned admissions in younger patients; fast infusion was recommended for older patients with sepsis. Slow infusion rate in the subgroup of patients in the test set in which slow infusion was recommended by the model was associated with an odds ratio of 0.58 (95% credible interval of 0.32-0.90; 0.99 posterior probability of benefit) for hospital mortality. Fast infusion in the subgroup in which the model recommended fast infusion was associated with an odds ratio of 0.72 (credible intervals from 0.54 to 0.91; probability of benefit >0.99). Conclusions: Estimation of CATEs from counterfactual probabilities in data from BaSICS provided additional information on trial data. Agreement between treatment recommendation and actual treatment was associated with lower hospital mortality. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Sepsis in Brazilian emergency departments: a prospective multicenter observational study.

We aimed to assess the prevalence, patient allocation adequacy, and mortality of adults with sepsis in Brazilian emergency departments (ED) in a point-prevalence 3-day investigation of patients with sepsis who presented to the ED and those who remained there due to inadequate allocation. Allocation was considered adequate if the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), ward, or remained in the ED without ICU admission requests. Prevalence was estimated using the total ED visit number. Prognostic factors were assessed with logistic regression. Of 33,902 ED visits in 74 institutions, 183 were acute admissions (prevalence: 5.4 sepsis per 1000 visits [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.2)], and 148 were already in the ED; totaling 331 patients. Hospital mortality was 32% (103/322, 95% CI 23.0-51.0). Age (odds ratio (OR) 1.22 [95% CI 1.10-1.37]), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.28-1.57]), healthcare-associated infections (OR 2.59 [95% CI 1.24-5.50]) and low-resource institution admission (OR 2.65 [95% CI 1.07-6.90]) were associated with higher mortality. Accredited institutions (OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.21-0.86]) had lower mortality rates. Allocation within 24 h was adequate in only 52.8% of patients (public hospitals: 42.4% (81/190) vs. private institutions: 67.4% (89/132, p < 0.001) with 39.2% (74/189) of public hospital patients remaining in the ED until discharge, of whom 55.4% (41/74) died. Sepsis exerts high burden and mortality in Brazilian EDs with frequent inadequate allocation. Modifiable factors, such as resources and quality of care, are associated with reduced mortality.

Rivaroxabana em Pacientes Ambulatoriais com COVID-19 Leve ou Moderada: Fundamentação e Desenho do Estudo CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII) / Rivaroxaban in Outpatients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19: Rationale and Design of the Study CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII)

Resumo Fundamento Estudos anteriores revelaram alto risco de eventos tromboembólicos arteriais e venosos como consequência de danos virais diretos do SARS-CoV-2 em células endoteliais e um meio procoagulante devido ao aumento de biomarcadores como o D-dímero, fibrinogênio, fator VIII. Foram realizados ensaios controlados randomizados de terapias antitrombóticas em pacientes internados, no entanto, poucos estudos avaliaram o papel da tromboprofilaxia no ambiente ambulatorial. Objetivo Avaliar se a profilaxia antitrombótica com rivaroxabana reduz o risco de eventos trombóticos venosos ou arteriais, suporte ventilatório invasivo e morte em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19. Métodos O estudo CARE é um ensaio randomizado, aberto, multicêntrico e controlado por rivaroxabana 10 mg uma vez por dia durante 14 dias ou tratamento local padrão isolado, para a prevenção de resultados adversos, registrado no Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). Os critérios de inclusão são adultos com infecção confirmada ou suspeita do SARS-CoV-2, com sintomas leves ou moderados, sem indicação de hospitalização, no prazo de 7 dias após o início dos sintomas e um fator de risco de complicação da COVID-19 (>65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). O desfecho primário composto inclui tromboembolismo venoso, necessidade de ventilação mecânica invasiva, eventos cardiovasculares agudos maiores e mortalidade no prazo de 30 dias após a randomização, sendo avaliado segundo o princípio da intenção de tratar. Todos os pacientes assinaram termo de consentimento. Foi estabelecido um nível de significância de 5% para todos os testes estatísticos. Resultados Os principais desfechos trombóticos e hemorrágicos, hospitalizações e mortes serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente, sob a condição cega para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. Conclusão O estudo CARE fornecerá informação relevante e contemporânea sobre o possível papel da tromboprofilaxia em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19.

Abstract Background Previous studies have demonstrated a high risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events as a consequence of direct viral damage to endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 and a procoagulant milieu due to increased biomarkers, such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII. Although randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapies have been conducted in hospitalized patients, few have evaluated the role of thromboprophylaxis in an outpatient setting. Objective To assess whether antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous or arterial thrombotic events, invasive ventilatory support, and death in COVID-19 outpatients. Methods The COVID Antithrombotic Rivaroxaban Evaluation (CARE) study, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 14 days or local standard treatment alone to prevent adverse outcomes, is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). The inclusion criteria are adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild or moderate symptoms without indication for hospitalization, within 7 days of symptom onset, and 1 risk factor for COVID-19 complication (> 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases, smoking, immunosuppression, or obesity). The primary composite endpoint, which includes venous thromboembolism, invasive mechanical ventilation, major acute cardiovascular events, and mortality within 30 days of randomization, will be assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. All patients will provide informed consent. A significance level of 5% will be used for all statistical tests. Results Major thrombotic and bleeding outcomes, hospitalizations, and deaths will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups. Conclusion The CARE study will provide relevant and contemporary information about the potential role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Rationale and Design of the COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V) Randomized Clinical Trial: Hydroxychloroquine vs. Placebo in Non-Hospitalized Patients. / Justificativa e Desenho do Ensaio Clínico Randomizado COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V): Hidroxicloroquina vs. Placebo em Pacientes Não Hospitalizados.

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for targeting specific therapeutic options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there has been no evidence of effectiveness of any specific treatment for the outpatient clinical setting. There are few randomized studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in non-hospitalized patients. These studies indicate no benefit from the use of HCQ, but they assessed different primary outcomes and presented important biases for outcome evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if HCQ may prevent hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to a matching placebo. METHODS: The COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) study is a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the use of HCQ (800 mg on day 1 and 400 mg from day 2 to day 7) or matching placebo for the prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in early non-hospitalized confirmed or suspected cases. Inclusion criteria are adults (≥ 18 years) seeking medical care with mild symptoms of COVID-19, with randomization ≤ 7 days after symptom onset, without indication of hospitalization at study screening, and with at least one risk factor for complication (> 65 years; hypertension; diabetes mellitus; asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases; smoking; immunosuppression; or obesity). All hypothesis tests will be two-sided. A p-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant in all analyses. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed following the intention-to-treat principle. CONCLUSION: This study has the potential to reliably answer the scientific question of HCQ use in outpatients with COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the largest trial evaluating HCQ in non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19.

FUNDAMENTO: Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos. OBJETIVO: Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente. MÉTODOS: O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540. RESULTADOS: Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar. CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.

Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Protocol for balanced versus saline trialists: living systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (BEST-Living study).

Objective: It remains unclear whether balanced solutions improve patient-centred outcomes in critically ill patients overall and whether the treatment effect is heterogeneous, with evidence that some populations of patients may be helped and others harmed. To provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of the totality of the evidence, we will perform an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing the use of balanced solutions with saline in critically ill adults. Design: Living systematic review using aggregated and individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Data sources: We will conduct annual searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials. gov, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Japan's University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center, and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC). The first search was completed on 1 March 2022 and will be repeated annually. Authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual data for the IPDMA. The initial analysis will use all data received up to 30 June 2022. Review methods: We will include randomised controlled trials in adults treated in an intensive care unit that allocated individuals or clusters of patients to a balanced crystalloid solution or 0.9% saline for intravenous fluid therapy. Studies that used colloids as part of the intervention or that recruited only elective surgical patients will be excluded. The primary endpoint will be in-hospital mortality. The key secondary endpoint will be survival at longest follow-up for each trial. Data will be synthesised using both a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and using hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data. Discussion: The use of balanced crystalloid solutions may reduce mortality and improve other outcomes in some critically ill patients. We will assess the totality of current and future evidence by performing an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated data and IPDMA. Protocol registration: CRD42022299282.

High flow nasal catheter therapy versus non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure (RENOVATE trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Background: The best way to offer non-invasive respiratory support across several aetiologies of acute respiratory failure (ARF) is presently unclear. Both high flow nasal catheter (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) may improve outcomes in critically ill patients by avoiding the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Objective: Describe the details of the protocol and statistical analysis plan designed to test whether HFNC therapy is non-inferior or even superior to NIPPV in patients with ARF due to different aetiologies. Methods: RENOVATE is a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial that is recruiting patients from adult emergency departments, wards and intensive care units (ICUs). It takes advantage of an adaptive Bayesian framework to assess the effectiveness of HFNC therapy versus NIPPV in four subgroups of ARF (hypoxaemic non-immunocompromised, hypoxaemic immunocompromised, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema). The study will report the posterior probabilities of non-inferiority, superiority or futility for the comparison between HFNC therapy and NIPPV. The study assumes neutral priors and the final sample size is not fixed. The final sample size will be determined by a priori determined stopping rules for non-inferiority, superiority and futility for each subgroup or by reaching the maximum of 2000 patients. Outcomes: The primary endpoint is endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days. Secondary outcomes are 28-day and 90-day mortality, and ICU-free and IMV-free days in the first 28 days. Results and conclusions: RENOVATE is designed to provide evidence on whether HFNC therapy improves, compared with NIPPV, important patient-centred outcomes in different aetiologies of ARF. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03643939.