Symptom Duration and Resolution With Early Outpatient Treatment of Convalescent Plasma for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS: We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS: Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04373460.

Transfusing Convalescent Plasma as Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Double-Blinded, Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: In total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04323800.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications. DISCUSSION: Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

The Effects of Four Doses of Vitamin D Supplements on Falls in Older Adults : A Response-Adaptive, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D supplementation may prevent falls in older persons, but evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of dosage differences. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 4 doses of vitamin D3 supplements on falls. DESIGN: 2-stage Bayesian, response-adaptive, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02166333). SETTING: 2 community-based research units. PARTICIPANTS: 688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25-(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L. INTERVENTION: 200 (control), 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU of vitamin D3 per day. During the dose-finding stage, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 vitamin D3 doses, and the best noncontrol dose for preventing falls was determined. After dose finding, participants previously assigned to receive noncontrol doses received the best dose, and new enrollees were randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d or the best dose. MEASUREMENTS: Time to first fall or death over 2 years (primary outcome). RESULTS: During the dose-finding stage, the primary outcome rates were higher for the 2000- and 4000-IU/d doses than for the 1000-IU/d dose, which was selected as the best dose (posterior probability of being best, 0.90). In the confirmatory stage, event rates were not significantly different between participants with experience receiving the best dose (events and observation time limited to the period they were receiving 1000 IU/d; n = 308) and those randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d (n = 339) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15]; P = 0.54). Analysis of falls with adverse outcomes suggested greater risk in the experience-with-best-dose group versus the 200-IU/d group (serious fall: HR, 1.87 [CI, 1.03 to 3.41]; fall with hospitalization: HR, 2.48 [CI, 1.13 to 5.46]). LIMITATIONS: The control group received 200 IU of vitamin D3 per day, not a placebo. Dose finding ended before the prespecified thresholds for dose suspension and dose selection were reached. CONCLUSION: In older persons with elevated fall risk and low serum 25-(OH)D levels, vitamin D3 supplementation at doses of 1000 IU/d or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/d. Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D3 doses of 1000 IU/d or higher. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (S-CitAD): Methods and design of an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disabling, common cause of dementia, and agitation is one of the most common and distressing symptoms for patients with AD. Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (S-CitAD) tests a novel, clinically derived therapeutic approach to treat agitation in patients with AD. METHODS: S-CitAD is a NIH-funded, investigator-initiated, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Participants receive a structured psychosocial intervention (PSI) as standard of care. Participants without sufficient response to PSI are randomized to receive 15 mg escitalopram/day or a matching placebo in addition to PSI. Primary outcome is the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC). DISCUSSION: S-CitAD will provide information about a practical, immediately available approach to treating agitation in patients with AD. S-CitAD may become a model of how to evaluate and predict treatment response in patients with AD and agitation as a neuropsychiatric symptom (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03108846).

Cardiovascular safety signals with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A disproportionality analysis among high-risk patients.

PURPOSE: In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Draft Guidance on investigating cardiovascular risk with oral diabetic drugs, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i). In 2014, underpowered, post hoc analyses of clinical trials suggested an increased risk of heart failure with the use of these products. As such, we assessed disproportionate reporting of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among reports for DPP-4i submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2006 to 2015. METHODS: We assessed the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) and its lower bound (EB05) of the relative reporting ratio for MACE among DPP-4i reports in the full FAERS database and in a subset of reports limited to cardiovascular and diabetic drugs. We then compared the EB05 in these 2 analyses and calculated the percent positive agreement for signals of disproportional reporting (SDRs) involving MACE. RESULTS: Of 180.3 million adverse event reports, 13.4 million were for diabetic and cardiovascular drugs. In the cardiovascular subset, there was an SDR for heart failure with linagliptin (EB05 = 2782.47) and saxagliptin (EB05 = 2.40), myocardial infarction with alogliptin (EB05 = 290.11), and cerebral infarction with sitagliptin (EB05 = 2.80). Of the 14 MACE, 8 had a percent positive agreement ≥50% for an SDR in both analyses. Overall, the cardiovascular subset elicited 11 more SDRs for DPP-4i than the full dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Postmarketing surveillance of DPP-4i through FAERS suggest increased reporting of MACE, supporting the current FDA warning of heart failure risk. This suggests the need for additional longitudinal, observational research into the association of DPP-4i and other MACE.

Building the Future of Environmental Public Health Tracking: Proceedings and Recommendations of an Expert Panel Workshop.

Since 2002, the national Environmental Health Tracking Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided vital support to state environmental public health efforts while simultaneously building a nationwide network of state, local, and academic partners to improve our nation's capacity to understand and respond to environmental threats to public health. As part of program review and strategic planning, national thought leaders in environmental public health were convened to assess progress, identify gaps and challenges, and provide recommendations for enhancing the utility and impact of the Tracking Program. Several opportunities were identified. Chief among these was the need for continued and expanded CDC leadership to develop a coordinated Tracking Program agenda identifying specific scientific goals, data needs, and initiatives. Recommendations for future growth included expanded data availability and program coverage: i.e., making data available at the community scale and establishing tracking programs in all 50 states. Finally, a set of recommendations emphasizing communication to decision makers and the public was made that will be integral to the future utility and success of the Tracking Program.

Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Early Treatment, Inflammation and Post-COVID Conditions.

Background: Post-COVID conditions (PCC) are common and have significant morbidity. Risk factors for PCC include advancing age, female sex, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Little is known about early treatment, inflammation, and PCC. Methods: Among 883 individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection participating in a randomized trial of CCP vs. control plasma with available biospecimens and symptom data, the association between early COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC was evaluated. Cytokine and chemokine levels were assessed at baseline, day 14 and day 90 using a multiplexed sandwich immuosassay (Mesoscale Discovery). Presence of any self-reported PCC symptoms was assessed at day 90. Associations between COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: One-third of the 882 participants had day 90 PCC symptoms, with fatigue (14.5%) and loss of smell (14.5%) being most common. Cytokine levels decreased from baseline to day 90. In a multivariable analysis including diabetes, body mass index, race, and vaccine status, female sex (adjusted odds ratio[AOR]=2.70[1.93-3.81]), older age (AOR=1.32[1.17-1.50]), and elevated baseline levels of IL-6 (AOR=1.59[1.02-2.47]) were associated with development of PCC.There was a trend for decreased PCC in those with early CCP treatment (≤5 days after symptom onset) compared to late CCP treatment. Conclusion: Increased IL-6 levels were associated with the development of PCC and there was a trend for decreased PCC with early CCP treatment in this predominately unvaccinated population. Future treatment studies should evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.

Early antibody treatment, inflammation, and risk of post-COVID conditions.

IMPORTANCE: Approximately 20% of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced long-term health effects, as defined PCC. However, it is unknown if there are any early biomarkers associated with PCC or whether early intervention treatments may decrease the risk of PCC. In a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, this study demonstrates that among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2, increased IL-6 at time of infection is associated with increased odds of PCC. In addition, among individuals treated early, within 5 days of symptom onset, with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, there was a trend for decreased odds of PCC after adjusting for other demographic and clinical characteristics. Future treatment studies should be considered to evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Background: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor cardiovascular safety in patients with type 2 diabetes, with cardiovascular and renal disease: a retrospective cohort study.

Clinical trials investigating cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) among patients with cardiovascular and renal disease rarely recruit patients with renal impairment, despite associations with increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We investigated the risk of MACE associated with the use of DPP-4i among these high-risk patients. Using a new-user, retrospective, cohort design, we analyzed 2010-2015 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters for patients with diabetes, comorbid with cardiovascular disease and/or renal impairment. We compared time to first MACE for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and versus metformin. Of 113,296 individuals, 9146 (8.07%) were new DPP-4i users, 17,481 (15.43%) were new sulfonylurea users, and 88,596 (78.20%) were new metformin users. Exposure groups were not mutually exclusive. DPP-4i was associated with lower risk for MACE than sulfonylurea (aHR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74, 0.93) and similar risk for MACE to metformin (aHR 1.07; 95% CI [1.04, 1.16]). DPP-4i use was associated with lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin. This association was most evident in the first year of therapy, suggesting that DPP-4i is a safer choice than sulfonylurea for diabetes treatment initiation in high-risk patients.

Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have been designed for outcomes of clinical pregnancy or live birth and have not been powered for obstetric outcomes such as preeclampsia, critical for maternal and fetal health. ART increasingly involves frozen embryo transfer (FET). Although there are advantages of FET, multiple studies have shown that risk of preeclampsia is increased with FET compared with fresh embryo transfer, and the reason for this difference is not clear. NatPro will compare the proportion of preeclampsia between two commonly used protocols for FET,modified natural and programmed cycle. METHODS: In this two-arm, parallel-group, multi-center randomized trial, NatPro will randomize 788 women to either modified natural or programmed FET and follow them for up to three FET cycles. Primary outcome will be the proportion of preeclampsia in women with a viable pregnancy assigned to a modified natural cycle FET (corpus luteum present) protocol compared to the proportion of preeclampsia in pregnant women assigned to a programmed FET (corpus luteum absent) protocol. Secondary outcomes will compare the proportion of live births and the proportion of preeclampsia with severe features between the protocols. CONCLUSION: This study has a potential significant impact on millions of women who pursue ART to build their families. NatPro is designed to provide clinically relevant guidance to inform patients and clinicians regarding maternal risk with programmed and modified natural cycle FET protocols. This study will also provide accurate point estimates regarding the likelihood of live birth with programmed and modified natural cycle FET. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04551807 . Registered on September 16, 2020.

Randomized controlled trial transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. We hypothesized that CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at screening. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. There were 28 adverse events in CCP and 58 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs. 25.2 days; p=0.49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs. 25.9 days; p=0.35) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: In this trial, which enrolled persons with recent exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, high titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis appeared safe, but did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov number NCT04323800 .

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) in patients without cardiovascular or renal disease, a majority of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes often excluded from clinical trials on this association, is poorly understood. Thus, we investigate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with DPP-4i in low-risk patients with diabetes. METHODS: Using a new-user retrospective cohort derived from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (2010-2015), we identified patients aged 35-65 with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease, initiating DPP-4i, sulfonylureas, or metformin. Primary composite outcome of time to first MACE was defined as the first of any of the following: myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronary artery bypass graft, coronary angioplasty, heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were time to first heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. We compared outcomes for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and DPP-4i versus metformin using propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities, concomitant medications, and cumulative exposure. RESULTS: Of 445,701 individuals, 236,431 (53.0%) were male, median age was 51 (interquartile range: [44, 57]), 30,267 (6.79%) initiated DPP-4i, 52,138 (11.70%) initiated sulfonylureas, and 367,908 (82.55%) initiated metformin. After adjustment, DPP-4i was associated with lower risk of MACE than sulfonylurea (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.98), and similar risk to metformin (aHR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.18). Risk for acute myocardial infarction (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96), stroke (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79), and heart failure (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) with DPP-4i was lower compared to sulfonylureas. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that for this cohort of low-risk patients newly treated for type 2 diabetes, DPP-4i exhibited 13% lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin, suggesting DPP-4i is a low cardiovascular risk option for low-risk patients initiating antihyperglycemic treatment.

Factors associated with disease severity and mortality among patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors associated with disease severity and mortality in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is imperative to effectively triage patients. We performed a systematic review to determine the demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological factors associated with severity and mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and WHO database for English language articles from inception until May 8, 2020. We included Observational studies with direct comparison of clinical characteristics between a) patients who died and those who survived or b) patients with severe disease and those without severe disease. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. RESULTS: Among 15680 articles from the literature search, 109 articles were included in the analysis. The risk of mortality was higher in patients with increasing age, male gender (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.23-1.71), dyspnea (RR 2.55, 95%CI 1.88-2.46), diabetes (RR 1.59, 95%CI 1.41-1.78), hypertension (RR 1.90, 95%CI 1.69-2.15). Congestive heart failure (OR 4.76, 95%CI 1.34-16.97), hilar lymphadenopathy (OR 8.34, 95%CI 2.57-27.08), bilateral lung involvement (OR 4.86, 95%CI 3.19-7.39) and reticular pattern (OR 5.54, 95%CI 1.24-24.67) were associated with severe disease. Clinically relevant cut-offs for leukocytosis(>10.0 x109/L), lymphopenia(< 1.1 x109/L), elevated C-reactive protein(>100mg/L), LDH(>250U/L) and D-dimer(>1mg/L) had higher odds of severe disease and greater risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the factors associated of disease severity and mortality identified in our study may assist in clinical decision-making and critical-care resource allocation for patients with COVID-19.

Association Between Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Lower Extremity Amputation Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Results of clinical trials suggest that canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor for treating type 2 diabetes, may be associated with lower extremity amputation. Objective: To quantify the association between the use of oral medication for type 2 diabetes and 5 outcomes (lower extremity amputation, peripheral arterial disease, critical limb ischemia, osteomyelitis, and ulcer). Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data on new users between September 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015. The study focused on 2.0 million commercially insured individuals and used propensity score weighting to balance baseline differences among groups. Sensitivity analyses varied statistical models, assessed the effect of combining dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists as a single referent group, adjusted for baseline use of older oral agents, and included people with baseline amputation. Exposures: New use of SGLT-2 inhibitors alone, DPP-4 inhibitors alone, GLP-1 agonists alone, or other antidiabetic agents (sulfonylurea, metformin hydrochloride, or thiazolidinediones). Main Outcomes and Measures: Foot and leg amputation, defined by validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Results: Among 2.0 million potentially eligible individuals, a total of 953 906 (516 046 women and 437 860 men; mean [SD] age, 51.8 [10.9] years) were included in the final analyses, including 39 869 new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors (4.2%), 105 023 new users of DPP-4 inhibitors (11.0%), and 39 120 new users of GLP-1 agonists (4.1%). The median observation time ranged from 99 days for new users of GLP-1 agonists to 127 days for those using metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones, while the crude incident rates ranged from 4.90 per 10 000 person-years for those using metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones to 10.53 per 10 000 person-years for new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. After propensity score weighting and adjustment for demographics, severity of diabetes, comorbidities, and medications, there was a nonstatistically significant increased risk of amputation associated with new use of SGLT-2 inhibitors compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.67) and GLP-1 agonists (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.64-3.36). New use of SGLT-2 inhibitors was statistically significantly associated with amputation compared with sulfonylureas, metformin, or thiazolidinediones (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.19-3.77). These results persisted in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of SGLT-2 inhibitors may be associated with increased risk of amputation compared with some oral treatments for type 2 diabetes. Further observational studies are needed with extended follow-up and larger sample sizes.

Maximizing the Post-Approval Safety of Flibanserin: A Role for Regulators, Clinicians, and Patients.

In August 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made the controversial decision to approve flibanserin (Addyi®) for women experiencing hypoactive sexual desire disorder. A number of factors contributed to disagreements regarding the FDA's decision, including the product's two prior failed FDA reviews, the unmet need of women with this disorder, extensive advocacy and politicization surrounding the product's relevance to women and sexual health, the potential for widespread off-label use, and the product's tenuous risk/benefit profile. Despite that, attention now shifts to maximizing the safe use of the product, including the optimal means to avoid numerous drug-drug interactions as well as the concomitant use of alcohol, both of which potentiate the risks of dizziness, hypotension, and syncope. Although the FDA has implemented a comprehensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to maximize the product's safe use, patients, clinicians, and regulators must exhibit heightened vigilance early in the product's post-market life.