Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Tofacitinib in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).

The relative merits of using a high-sensitivity cardiac Troponin T assay compared to a nonhigh-sensitivity troponin T assay after noncardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Troponin elevation after noncardiac surgery is associated with an elevated risk of 30-day mortality. Little is known about relative merit of using a high-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), the fifth-generation assay, vs the nonhigh sensitivity Troponin T (non-hsTnT), the fourth-generation assay, in the noncardiac surgery setting. We aimed to identify whether hsTnT can identify additional patients at risk that would have gone undetected with non-hsTnT measurement. METHODS: The VISION Study included 40,004 noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative troponin measurements. Among them, 1,806 patients had both fourth-generation non-hsTnT and fifth-generation hsTnT concomitant measurements (4,451 paired results). We compared the absolute concentrations, the timing, and the impact of different thresholds on predicting 30-day major cardiovascular complications (composite of death, nonfatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, and congestive heart failure). RESULTS: Based on the manufacturers' threshold of 14 ng/L, 580 (32.1%) patients had postoperative hsTnT concentrations greater than the threshold, while their non-hsTnT concentrations were below the manufacturer's threshold. These 580 patients had higher risk of major cardiovascular events (OR 2.33; CI 95% 1.04-5.23; P = .049) than patients with hsTnT concentrations below the manufacturer threshold. Among patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, only 50% would be detected by the fourth-generation non-hsTnT assay at 6 to 12 hours postoperative as compared to 85% with the fifth-generation hsTnT assay (P-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the first 3 postoperative days, fifth-generation hsTnT identified at least 1 in 3 patients with troponin elevation that would have gone undetected by fourth-generation non-hsTnT using published thresholds in this setting. Furthermore, fifth-generation hsTnT identified patients with an elevation earlier than fourth-generation non-hsTnT, indicating potential to improve postoperative risk stratification.

One-year Outcomes after Discharge from Noncardiac Surgery and Association between Predischarge Complications and Death after Discharge: Analysis of the VISION Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery. METHODS: This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis. RESULTS: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr). CONCLUSIONS: One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge.

Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition for Thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19: Primary Results of the ASPEN-COVID-19 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombo-inflammation is central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. TF (tissue factor), a driver of disordered coagulation and inflammation in viral infections, may be a therapeutic target in COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of the novel TF inhibitor rNAPc2 (recombinant nematode anticoagulation protein c2) in COVID-19 are unknown. METHODS: ASPEN-COVID-19 was an international, randomized, open-label, active comparator clinical trial with blinded end point adjudication. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels were randomized 1:1:2 to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by heparin on day 8 or to heparin per local standard of care. In comparisons of the pooled rNAPc2 versus heparin groups, the primary safety end point was major or nonmajor clinically relevant International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding through day 8. The primary efficacy end point was proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to day 8, or discharge if before day 8. Patients were followed for 30 days. RESULTS: Among 160 randomized patients, median age was 54 years, 43.1% were female, and 38.8% had severe baseline COVID-19. There were no significant differences between rNAPc2 and heparin in bleeding or other safety events. Overall, median change in D-dimer was -16.8% (interquartile range, -45.7 to 36.8; P=0.41) with rNAPc2 treatment and -11.2% (-36.0 to 34.4; P=0.91) with heparin (Pintergroup=0.47). In prespecified analyses, in severely ill patients, D-dimer levels tended to increase more within the heparin (median, 29.0% [-14.9 to 145.2]; P=0.02) than the rNAPc2 group (median, 25.9% [-49.1 to 136.4]; P=0.14; Pintergroup=0.96); in mildly ill patients, D-dimer levels were reduced within each group with a numerically greater reduction with rNAPc2 versus heparin (rNAPc2 median, -32.7% [-44.7 to 4.3]; P=0.007 and heparin median, -16.8% [-36.0 to 0.5]; P=0.008, Pintergroup=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: rNAPc2 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated without excess bleeding or serious adverse events but did not significantly reduce D-dimer more than heparin at day 8. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04655586.

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 Tele-ICU on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: The TELESCOPE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite its implementation in several countries, there has not been a randomized clinical trial to assess whether telemedicine in intensive care units (ICUs) could improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. Objective: To determine whether an intervention comprising daily multidisciplinary rounds and monthly audit and feedback meetings performed by a remote board-certified intensivist reduces ICU length of stay (LOS) compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel cluster randomized clinical trial with a baseline period in 30 general ICUs in Brazil in which daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by board-certified intensivists were not routinely available. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to the participating ICUs, excluding those admitted due to justice-related issues, were enrolled between June 1, 2019, and April 7, 2021, with last follow-up on July 6, 2021. Intervention: Remote daily multidisciplinary rounds led by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine, monthly audit and feedback meetings for discussion of ICU performance indicators, and provision of evidence-based clinical protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ICU LOS at the patient level. Secondary outcomes included ICU efficiency, in-hospital mortality, incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated events, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation, and rate of patients with oxygen saturation values under that of normoxemia, assessed using generalized linear mixed models. Results: Among 17 024 patients (1794 in the baseline period and 15 230 in the intervention period), the mean (SD) age was 61 (18) years, 44.7% were female, the median (IQR) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 6 (2-9), and 45.5% were invasively mechanically ventilated at admission. The median (IQR) time under intervention was 20 (16-21) months. Mean (SD) ICU LOS, adjusted for baseline assessment, did not differ significantly between the tele-critical care and usual care groups (8.1 [10.0] and 7.1 [9.0] days; percentage change, 8.2% [95% CI, -5.4% to 23.8%]; P = .24). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses and prespecified subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any other secondary or exploratory outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine did not reduce ICU LOS in critically ill adult patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03920501.

Dapagliflozin for Critically Ill Patients With Acute Organ Dysfunction: The DEFENDER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, but their effect on outcomes of critically ill patients with organ failure is unknown. Objective: To determine whether the addition of dapagliflozin, an SGLT-2 inhibitor, to standard intensive care unit (ICU) care improves outcomes in a critically ill population with acute organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted at 22 ICUs in Brazil. Participants with unplanned ICU admission and presenting with at least 1 organ dysfunction (respiratory, cardiovascular, or kidney) were enrolled between November 22, 2022, and August 30, 2023, with follow-up through September 27, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized to 10 mg of dapagliflozin (intervention, n = 248) plus standard care or to standard care alone (control, n = 259) for up to 14 days or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and ICU length of stay through 28 days, analyzed using the win ratio method. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the hierarchical outcome, duration of organ support-free days, ICU, and hospital stay, assessed using bayesian regression models. Results: Among 507 randomized participants (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 15] years; 46.9%, women), 39.6% had an ICU admission due to suspected infection. The median time from ICU admission to randomization was 1 day (IQR, 0-1). The win ratio for dapagliflozin for the primary outcome was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.13; P = .89). Among all secondary outcomes, the highest probability of benefit found was 0.90 for dapagliflozin regarding use of kidney replacement therapy among 27 patients (10.9%) in the dapagliflozin group vs 39 (15.1%) in the control group. Conclusion and Relevance: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard care for critically ill patients and acute organ dysfunction did not improve clinical outcomes; however, confidence intervals were wide and could not exclude relevant benefits or harms for dapagliflozin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05558098.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and a Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.

BACKGROUND: The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months. (Funded by PROADI-SUS and Bayer; RIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02303795.).

The effects of canagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in subgroups defined by population-specific body mass index: Insights from the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial.

AIM: To assess the effects of canagliflozin on clinical outcomes and intermediate markers across population-specific body mass index (BMI) categories in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial. METHODS: Individual participant data were pooled and analysed in subgroups according to population-specific BMI. The main outcomes of interest were: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke or cardiovascular death); composite renal outcome; and changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), body weight, albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope. Cox proportional hazards models and mixed-effect models were used. RESULTS: A total of 14 520 participants were included, of whom 9378 (65%) had obesity. Overall, canagliflozin reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.93) with no heterogeneity of treatment effect across BMI subgroups (Pheterogeneity = 0.76). Similarly, canagliflozin reduced composite renal outcomes (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84) with no heterogeneity across subgroups observed (Pheterogeneity = 0.72). The effects of canagliflozin on body weight and SBP differed across BMI subgroups (Pheterogeneity <0.01 and 0.04, respectively) but were consistent for albuminuria (Pheterogeneity = 0.60). Chronic eGFR slope with canagliflozin treatment was consistent across subgroups (Pheterogeneity >0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The cardiovascular and renal benefits of canagliflozin and its safety profile were consistent across population-specific BMI subgroups for adults in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trial.

Influenza vaccination strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the VIP-ACS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.

Apixaban or Vitamin K Antagonists and Aspirin or Placebo According to Kidney Function in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the AUGUSTUS Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AUGUSTUS trial (An Open-Label, 2×2 Factorial, Randomized Controlled, Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban Versus Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin Versus Aspirin Placebo in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), apixaban resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations than vitamin K antagonists, and aspirin caused more bleeding than placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor. We evaluated the risk-benefit balance of antithrombotic therapy according to kidney function. METHODS: In 4456 patients, the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) formula was used to calculate baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The effect of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists and aspirin versus placebo was assessed across kidney function categories by using Cox models. The primary outcome was International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and ischemic events (death, stroke, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis [definite or probable], or urgent revascularization). Creatinine clearance <30 mL/min was an exclusion criterion in the AUGUSTUS trial. RESULTS: Overall, 30%, 52%, and 19% had an eGFR of >80, >50 to 80, and 30 to 50 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, respectively. At the 6-month follow-up, a total of 543 primary outcomes of bleeding, 1125 death or hospitalizations, and 282 ischemic events occurred. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, patients assigned apixaban had lower rates for all 3 outcomes across most eGFR categories without significant interaction. The absolute risk reduction with apixaban was most pronounced in those with an eGFR of 30 to 50 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 for bleeding events with rates of 13.1% versus 21.3% (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84). Patients assigned aspirin had a higher risk of bleeding in all eGFR categories with an even greater increase among those with eGFR >80 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2: 16.6% versus 5.6% (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 2.19-4.74; P for interaction=0.007). The risk of death or hospitalization and ischemic events were comparable to aspirin and placebo across eGFR categories with hazard ratios ranging from 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.23) to 1.28 (95% CI, 1.02-1.59) and from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.48-1.17) to 1.34 (95% CI, 0.81-2.22), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of apixaban was consistent irrespective of kidney function, compared with warfarin, and in accordance with the overall trial results. The risk of bleeding with aspirin was consistently higher across all kidney function categories. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02415400.

Digital Health-Enabled Clinical Trials in Stroke: Ready for Prime Time?

As stroke continues to represent a major global health care problem, advancing our knowledge of new effective and safe stroke interventions represents a public health priority. The identification of these therapies requires the conduct of high-quality and well-powered randomized clinical trials. Despite its potential to inform clinical practice, traditional randomized clinical trial models have their drawbacks, including elevated costs, long completion times, failure to recruit the target sample sizes, lack of diversity, and complex operational procedures. Therefore, improving the participants' experience and trials' overall efficiency constitutes an important unmet need. Innovative models such as virtual and decentralized patient-centric trials have been proposed as a valuable strategy in this pursuit. In this narrative review, we discuss the limitations of traditional randomized clinical trial models and present the concept, advantages, and challenges of decentralized digitally enabled approaches to the conduct of stroke clinical trials.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate antithrombotic regimens for patients with atrial fibrillation who have an acute coronary syndrome or have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are unclear. METHODS: In an international trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation who had an acute coronary syndrome or had undergone PCI and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor to receive apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist and to receive aspirin or matching placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and a composite of ischemic events. RESULTS: Enrollment included 4614 patients from 33 countries. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was noted in 10.5% of the patients receiving apixaban, as compared with 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.81; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the patients receiving aspirin, as compared with 9.0% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.24; P<0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% vs. 27.4%; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; P = 0.002) and a similar incidence of ischemic events. Patients in the aspirin group had an incidence of death or hospitalization and of ischemic events that was similar to that in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, an antithrombotic regimen that included apixaban, without aspirin, resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; AUGUSTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02415400.).

Morphine and clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic and antiplatelet therapy: Insights from the TREAT trial.

BACKGROUND: Morphine is commonly used to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnea in STEMI but it lowers blood pressure and delays the activity of oral antiplatelet agents. The impact of morphine on clinical outcomes remains unknown. This analysis was performed to determine if morphine use was associated with increased risk of adverse clinical events among STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: In the Ticagrelor in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Pharmacological Thrombolysis (TREAT) study, 3799 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Morphine use was left to the discretion of the treating physicians. In this pre-specified analysis, we evaluated clinical outcomes based on the use and timing of morphine administration. Outcomes were stratified by randomized treatment group. Multivariable analysis was performed using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) weighting. RESULTS: Morphine was used in 53% of patients. After adjustment using IPTW weighting, morphine use was associated with higher hazard of reinfarction at 7 days (HR 4.9, P = .0006) and 30 days (HR 1.7, P = .04), and lower hazard of major bleeding (HR 0.37, P = .006). There was no significant difference in mortality at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic therapy, morphine use was associated with a higher risk of early reinfarction and a lower risk of major bleeding but no difference in mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. DESIGN: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.