Daily Chlorhexidine Bath for Health Care Associated Infection Prevention (CLEAN-IT): protocol for a multicenter cluster randomized crossover open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at increased risk of health care-associated infections due to various devices (central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which pose a significant threat to this population. Among several strategies, daily bathing with chlorhexidine digluconate, a water-soluble antiseptic, has been studied as an intervention to decrease the incidence of health care-associated infections in the intensive care unit; however, its ability to reduce all health care-associated infections due to various devices is unclear. We designed the Daily Chlorhexidine Bath for Health Care Associated Infection Prevention (CLEAN-IT) trial to assess whether daily chlorhexidine digluconate bathing reduces the incidence of health care-associated infections in critically ill patients compared with soap and water bathing. METHODS: The CLEAN-IT trial is a multicenter, open-label, cluster randomized crossover clinical trial. All adult patients admitted to the participating intensive care units will be included in the trial. Each cluster (intensive care unit) will be randomized to perform either initial chlorhexidine digluconate bathing or soap and water bathing with crossover for a period of 3 to 6 months, depending on the time of each center's entrance to the study, with a 1-month washout period between chlorhexidine digluconate bathing and soap and water bathing transitions. The primary outcome is the incidence of health care-associated infections due to devices. The secondary outcomes are the incidence of each specific health care-associated infection, rates of microbiological cultures positive for multidrug-resistant pathogens, antibiotic use, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit and hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The CLEAN-IT trial will be used to study feasible and affordable interventions that might reduce the health care-associated infection burden in critically ill patients.

Effects of mixed nuts as part of a Brazilian Cardioprotective diet on LDL-cholesterol in adult patients after myocardial infarction: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nuts consumption is related to cardioprotective effects on primary cardiovascular prevention, but studies conducted in secondary prevention are small, scarce and controversial. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effects of a regional and sustainable cardioprotective diet added or not with an affordable mixed nuts on cardiometabolic features in patients with previous myocardial infarction. METHODS: DICA-NUTS study is a national, multi-center, and superiority-parallel randomized clinical trial. Males and females over 40 years old diagnosed with previous myocardial infarction in the last 2 to 6 months were included. Patients were allocated into two groups: the Brazilian Cardioprotective diet (DICA Br) supplemented with 30 g/day of mixed nuts (10 g of peanuts; 10 g of cashew; 10 g of Brazil nuts) (intervention group, n = 193); or only DICA Br prescription (control group, n = 195). The primary outcome was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol means (in mg/dL) after 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were other lipid biomarkers, glycemic and anthropometric data and diet quality. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline values, participating study site, time since myocardial infarction and statin treatment regimen (high potency, moderate and low potency/no statins), no significant difference was found between the groups in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (intervention-control difference: 3.48 mg/dL [-3.45 to 10.41], P = 0.32). Both groups improved their overall diet quality at the end of the study without differences between them after 16 weeks (intervention-control difference: 1.05 (-0.9 to 2.99); P = 0.29). Other lipids, glycemic profile and anthropometrics were also not different between study groups at the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Adding 30 g/day of mixed nuts to the DICA Br for 16 weeks did not change lipid, glycemic and anthropometric features in the post-myocardial infarction setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov website under number NCT03728127 and its World Health Organization Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN) is U1111-1259-8105.

Safety and Efficacy of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review. / Segurança e Eficácia da Terapia com Células-tronco Mesenquimais Derivadas do Tecido Adiposo para Cardiopatia Isquêmica: Revisão Sistemática.

BACKGROUND: Cell therapy using adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) shows great potential as a treatment for cardiovascular diseases. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to describe the safety and efficacy of ADSCs in ischemic heart disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS (from inception to March 2024) for clinical studies involving ADSCs in patients with ischemic heart disease. We excluded studies involving patients with other types of heart disease, studies using mesenchymal stem cells derived from other tissues, as well as ongoing studies. Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials, using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria modified by McMaster University and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). We used a narrative synthesis to present the results. RESULTS: Ten studies (comprising 29 publications) met our inclusion criteria, including 8 randomized controlled trials and 2 uncontrolled trials. No severe adverse events associated with ADSC therapy were reported. While most efficacy endpoints did not reach statistical significance, there were reports of improved ischemic area, functional capacity, symptoms, and contractility in patients treated with ADSCs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our review suggest that ADSC therapy is generally safe for patients with ischemic heart disease. However, further investigation is warranted to confirm its efficacy, particularly with larger clinical trials and in specific conditions where improvements in microcirculation may have a notable impact on clinical outcomes.

FUNDAMENTO: A terapia celular utilizando células-tronco mesenquimais derivadas do tecido adiposo (ADSC, sigla em inglês) apresenta grande potencial como tratamento para doenças cardiovasculares. OBJETIVO: Realizamos uma revisão sistemática para descrever a segurança e a eficácia das ADSC na cardiopatia isquêmica. MÉTODOS: Pesquisamos na PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL e LILACS (desde o início até março de 2024) por estudos clínicos envolvendo ADSC em pacientes com cardiopatia isquêmica. Excluímos estudos envolvendo pacientes com outros tipos de doenças cardíacas, estudos utilizando células-tronco mesenquimais derivadas de outros tecidos, bem como estudos em andamento. Dois revisores independentes realizaram a triagem das citações recuperadas, extraíram dados relevantes e avaliaram o risco de viés nos ensaios incluídos, utilizando os critérios da Colaboração Cochrane modificados pela Universidade McMaster e o Índice Metodológico para Estudos Não-Randomizados (MINORS). Utilizamos uma síntese narrativa para apresentar os resultados. RESULTADOS: Dez estudos (compreendendo 29 publicações) preencheram nossos critérios de inclusão, incluindo 8 ensaios controlados randomizados e 2 ensaios não controlados. Não foram relatados eventos adversos graves associados à terapia com ADSC. Embora a maioria dos desfechos de eficácia não tenha alcançado significância estatística, houve relatos de melhora da área isquêmica, capacidade funcional, sintomas e contratilidade em pacientes tratados com ADSC. CONCLUSÕES: Os resultados da nossa revisão sugerem que a terapia com ADSC é geralmente segura para pacientes com cardiopatia isquêmica. Contudo, são necessárias mais investigações para confirmar a sua eficácia, particularmente em ensaios clínicos de maior escala e em condições específicas onde as melhorias na microcirculação podem ter um impacto notável nos desfechos clínicos.

Antisense therapy to block the Kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19: The ASKCOV randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life. RESULTS: From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520). CONCLUSION: Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04549922.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. CONCLUSION: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Differential Effect of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With ARDS: A Bayesian Analysis of Clinical Subphenotypes.

BACKGROUND: ARDS is a heterogeneous condition with two subphenotypes identified by different methodologies. Our group similarly identified two ARDS subphenotypes using nine routinely available clinical variables. However, whether these are associated with differential response to treatment has yet to be explored. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there differential responses to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies on 28-day mortality according to subphenotypes in adult patients with ARDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated data from two prior ARDS trials (Higher vs Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressures in Patients With the ARDS [ALVEOLI] and the Alveolar Recruitment in ARDS Trial [ART]) that compared different PEEP strategies. We classified patients into one of two subphenotypes as described previously. We assessed the differential effect of PEEP with a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model for the primary outcome of 28-day mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1,559 patients with ARDS. Compared with lower PEEP, a higher PEEP strategy resulted in higher 28-day mortality in patients with subphenotype A disease in the ALVEOLI study (OR, 1.61; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.90-2.94) and ART (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.01-2.98), with a probability of harm resulting from higher PEEP in this subphenotype of 94.3% and 97.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. Higher PEEP was not associated with mortality in patients with subphenotype B disease in each trial (OR, 0.95 [95% CrI, 0.51-1.73] and 1.00 [95% CrI, 0.63-1.55], respectively), with probability of benefit of 56.4% and 50.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. These effects were not modified by Pao2 to Fio2 ratio, driving pressure, or the severity of illness for the cohorts. INTERPRETATION: We found evidence of differential response to PEEP strategies across two ARDS subphenotypes, suggesting possible harm with a higher PEEP strategy in one subphenotype. These observations may assist with predictive enrichment in future clinical trials.

Halofuginone for non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 a multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. The HALOS trial.

BACKGROUND: Halofuginone (PJS-539) is an oral prolyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor that has a potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus. The safety and efficacy of halofuginone in Covid-19 patients has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose ranging, safety and tolerability trial of halofuginone in symptomatic (≤ 7 days), mostly vaccinated, non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive halofuginone 0.5mg, 1mg or placebo orally once daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithmic curve within 10 days after randomization. RESULTS: From September 25, 2021, to February 3, 2022, 153 patients were randomized. The mean decay rate in SARS-CoV-2 viral load log10 within 10 days was -3.75 (95% CI, -4.11; -3.19) in the placebo group, -3.83 (95% CI, -4.40; -2.27) in the halofuginone 0.5mg group and -4.13 (95% CI, -4.69; -3.57) in the halofuginone 1mg group, with no statistically significant difference in between placebo vs. halofuginone 0.5mg (mean difference -0.08; 95% CI -0.82 to 0.66, p = 0.96) and between placebo vs. halofuginone 1mg (mean difference -0.38; 95% CI, -1.11; 0.36, p = 0.41). There was no difference on bleeding episodes or serious adverse events at 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19 halofuginone treatment was safe and well tolerated but did not decrease SARS-CoV-2 viral load decay rate within 10 days.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan / Estudo randomizado prospectivo e controlado de avaliação dos efeitos de uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (estudo STAMINA): protocolo e plano de análise estatística

ABSTRACT Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

RESUMO Contexto: Em estudos observacionais sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, sugeriu-se que a driving pressure é o principal fator de lesão pulmonar induzida por ventilador e de mortalidade. Não está claro se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure pode melhorar os desfechos clínicos. Objetivo: Descrever o protocolo e o plano de análise estatística que serão usados para testar se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure envolvendo a titulação da pressão positiva expiratória final de acordo com a melhor complacência respiratória e a redução do volume corrente é superior a uma estratégia padrão envolvendo o uso da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSNet, em termos de aumento do número de dias sem ventilador em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade. Métodos: O estudo STAMINA (ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA) é randomizado, multicêntrico e aberto e compara uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure com a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Esperamos recrutar 500 pacientes de 20 unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras e duas colombianas. Eles serão randomizados para um grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure ou para um grupo de estratégia padrão usando a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet. No grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure, a pressão positiva expiratória final será titulada de acordo com a melhor complacência do sistema respiratório. Desfechos: O desfecho primário é o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias. Os desfechos secundários são a mortalidade hospitalar e na unidade de terapia intensiva e a necessidade de terapias de resgate, como suporte de vida extracorpóreo, manobras de recrutamento e óxido nítrico inalado. Conclusão: O STAMINA foi projetado para fornecer evidências sobre se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure é superior à estratégia da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet para aumentar o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave. Aqui, descrevemos a justificativa, o desenho e o status do estudo.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A randomized, Phase II/III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocol and statistical analysis plan. / Antivirais para pacientes adultos hospitalizados com infecção por SARS-CoV-2: Um estudo de Fase II/III, randomizado, multicêntrico, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, com múltiplos braços e estágios. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocolo e plano de análise estatística.

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04468087.

Antivirais para pacientes adultos hospitalizados com infecção por SARS-CoV-2: Um estudo de Fase II/III, randomizado, multicêntrico, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, com múltiplos braços e estágios. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocolo e plano de análise estatística / Antivirals for adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A randomized, Phase II/III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocol and statistical analysis plan

RESUMO Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04468087

ABSTRACT Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT04468087

Identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes de novo using routine clinical data: a retrospective analysis of ARDS clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition, and identification of subphenotypes may help in better risk stratification. Our study objective is to identify ARDS subphenotypes using new simpler methodology and readily available clinical variables. SETTING: This is a retrospective Cohort Study of ARDS trials. Data from the US ARDSNet trials and from the international ART trial. PARTICIPANTS: 3763 patients from ARDSNet data sets and 1010 patients from the ART data set. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 60-day or 28-day mortality, depending on what was reported in the original trial. K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify subgroups. Sets of candidate variables were tested to assess their ability to produce different probabilities for mortality in each cluster. Clusters were compared with biomarker data, allowing identification of subphenotypes. RESULTS: Data from 4773 patients were analysed. Two subphenotypes (A and B) resulted in optimal separation in the final model, which included nine routinely collected clinical variables, namely heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, bilirubin, bicarbonate, creatinine, PaO2, arterial pH and FiO2. Participants in subphenotype B showed increased levels of proinflammatory markers, had consistently higher mortality, lower number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and longer duration of ventilation compared with patients in the subphenotype A. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely available clinical data can successfully identify two distinct subphenotypes in adult ARDS patients. This work may facilitate implementation of precision therapy in ARDS clinical trials.

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.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter: Rationale and design of the RIVER trial.

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. DESIGN: RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. SUMMARY: RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

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.).

Driving Pressure-limited Strategy for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Evidence from observational studies suggests that driving pressure is strongly associated with pulmonary injury and mortality, regardless of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, tidal volume, or plateau pressure. Therefore, it is possible that targeting driving pressure may improve the safety of ventilation strategies for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the clinical effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy for ARDS has not been assessed in randomized controlled trials.Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of testing a driving pressure-limited strategy in comparison with a conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients with ARDS and a baseline driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O.Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, nonblinded trial that included 31 patients with ARDS who were on invasive mechanical ventilation and had a driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O. Patients allocated to the driving pressure-limited strategy were ventilated with volume-controlled or pressure-support ventilation modes, with tidal volume titrated to 4-8 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW), aiming at a driving pressure of 10 cm H2O, or the lowest possible. Patients in the control group were ventilated according to the ARDSNet (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network) protocol, using a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg PBW, which was allowed to be set down to 4 ml/kg PBW if the plateau pressure was >30 cm H2O. The primary endpoint was the driving pressure on Days 1-3.Results: Sixteen patients were randomized to the driving pressure-limited group and 15 were randomized to the conventional strategy group. All patients were considered in analyses. Most of the patients had mild ARDS with a mean arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of 215 (standard deviation [SD] = 95). The baseline driving pressure was 15.0 cm H2O (SD = 2.6) in both groups. In comparison with the conventional strategy, driving pressure from the first hour to the third day was 4.6 cm H2O lower in the driving pressure-limited group (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 2.8; P < 0.001). From the first hour up to the third day, tidal volume in the driving pressure-limited strategy group was kept lower than in the control group (mean difference [ml/kg of PBW], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 0.9; P < 0.001). We did not find statistically significant differences in the incidence of severe acidosis (pH < 7.10) within 7 days (absolute difference -12.1; 95% CI, -41.5 to -17.3) or any clinical secondary endpoint.Conclusions: In patients with ARDS, a trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy using very low tidal volumes versus a conventional ventilation strategy on clinical outcomes is feasible.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02365038).

Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.

Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials / Comparação de Próteses Biológicas e Mecânicas para Cirurgia de Válvula Cardíaca: Revisão Sistemática de Estudos Controlados Randomizados

Abstract Background: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus. Objective: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar. Conclusions: The mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.

Resumo Fundamento: A escolha de próteses mecânicas ou biológicas para pacientes com doença de válvula cardíaca ainda não é um consenso. Objetivo: Determinar os desfechos clínicos de próteses mecânicas e biológicas nesses pacientes. Métodos: Conduzimos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise e estudos controlados randomizados (RCTs) que compararam próteses mecânicas e biológicas em pacientes com doenças de válvulas cardíaca, e avaliamos seus resultados. A busca por RCTs foi feita nas bases de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS e Web of Science (do início a novembro de 2014). As metanálises foram realizadas usando variação inversa com modelos de efeitos aleatórios. Usamos o sistema GRADE para avaliar a qualidade da evidência. Um valor menor que 0,05 foi considerado significativo. Resultados: Um total de quatro RCTs foi incluído na metanálise (1528 pacientes) com acompanhamento de 2 a 20 anos. Em três estudos, foram utilizadas próteses mecânicas e biológicas mais antigas, e em um estudo próteses contemporâneas. Não foi observada diferença de mortalidade entre os pacientes que receberam próteses mecânicas e biológicas (risco relativo, RR = 1,07; IC95% 0,99-1,15). O risco de sangramento foi significativamente mais baixo nos pacientes que receberam próteses biológicas que naqueles com próteses mecânicas (RR = 0,64; IC95% 0,52-0,78). Contudo, as reoparações foram mais frequentes em pacientes com próteses biológicas (RR = 3,60; IC95% 2,44-5,32). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre pacientes com próteses biológicas e mecânicas em relação à embolia arterial sistêmica e endocardite infecciosa (RR = 0,93; IC95% 0,66-1,31; RR = 1,21; IC95% 0,78-1,88, respectivamente). Resultados entre os estudos com próteses modernas e antigas foram similares. Conclusões: A taxa de mortalidade e o risco de eventos tromboembólicos e endocardite foram similares entre os pacientes que receberam próteses biológicas e mecânicas. O risco de sangramentos foi aproximadamente um terço menor nos pacientes com próteses biológicas que mecânicas, ao passo que o risco de reoperação foi mais que três vezes maior nos pacientes com próteses biológicas.

Timing of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Loading doses of atorvastatin did not show reduction on clinical outcomes in the overall population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Statins Evaluation in Coronary Procedures and Revascularization (SECURE-PCI) trial, but a potential benefit was identified in patients who subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: To determine whether periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin are associated with decreased 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS undergoing PCI according to type of ACS and timing of atorvastatin administration before PCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites that enrolled 4191 patients with ACS intended to be treated with PCI between April 18, 2012, and October 06, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin or matching placebo before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. By protocol, all patients (regardless of treatment group) received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE through 30 days, composed by all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Cox regression models adjusting for key baseline characteristics were used to assess the association between atorvastatin and MACE in patients undergoing PCI. Results: From the overall trial population, 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI (650 women [24.0%]; mean [SD] age, 62 [11.3] years). Loading atorvastatin was associated with reduced MACE at 30 days by 28% in the PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI 0.54-0.97; P = .03). Loading dose of atorvastatin was administered less than 12 hours before PCI in 2548 patients (95.3%) (45.1% < 2 hours and 54.3% between 2 and 12 hours). There was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of study drug administration. The treatment effect of loading atorvastatin was more pronounced in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92; P = .02; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.27; P = .43, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin appeared to reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days, most clearly in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This beneficial effect seemed to be preserved and consistent, irrespective of the timing of atorvastatin administration, including within 2 hours before PCI. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Rationale and design of the Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization: The SECURE-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that acute treatment with statins reduce atherosclerotic complications, including periprocedural myocardial infarction, but currently, there are no large, adequately powered studies to define the effects of early, high-dose statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization (SECURE-PCI) Trial is to determine whether the early use of a loading dose of 80 mg of atorvastatin before an intended percutaneous coronary intervention followed by an additional dose of 80 mg 24 hours after the procedure will be able to reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days in patients with an ACS. DESIGN: The SECURE-PCI study is a pragmatic, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial planned to enroll around 4,200 patients in 58 different sites in Brazil. The primary outcome is the rate of major cardiovascular events at 30 days defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. SUMMARY: The SECURE PCI is a large randomized trial testing a strategy of early, high-dose statin in patients with ACS and will provide important information about the acute treatment of this patient population.

Effect of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin Prior to Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days. Results: Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, -0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.