Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine and Baricitinib for Patients at High Risk of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: The PANCOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate if patients with high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) would benefit from treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) followed by baricitinib in case of hypoxemia and systemic inflammation. METHODS: PANCOVID is an open-label, double-randomized, phase 3 pragmatic clinical trial including adults with symptomatic COVID-19 with ≥2 comorbidities or aged ≥60 years and was conducted between 10 October 2020 and 23 September 2021. In the first randomization, patients received TDF/FTC or no TDF/FTC. In the second randomization, patients with room air oxygen saturation <95% and at least 1 increased inflammatory biomarker received baricitinib plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Main secondary endpoint was 28-day disease progression or critical care unit admission or mortality. The trial was stopped before reaching planned sample size due to the decrease in the number of cases and a mortality rate substantially lower than expected. RESULTS: Of the 355 included participants, 97% were hospitalized at baseline. Overall, 28-day mortality was 3.1%. The 28-day mortality relative risk (RR) for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], .52-5.91; P = .379); it was 0.42 (95% CI, .11-1.59; P = .201) for those treated with baricitinib. The 28-day RR for the main secondary combined endpoint for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 0.95 (95% CI, .66-1.40; P = .774); it was 0.90 (95% CI, .61-1.33; P = .687) for those treated with baricitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not suggest a beneficial effect of TDF/FTC; nevertheless, they are compatible with the beneficial effect of baricitinib already established by other clinical trials. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2020-001156-18.

Clinical course and treatment of incidentally detected splanchnic vein thrombosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance and management of incidental splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) remain poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical course of incidental SVT in comparison with symptomatic SVT and assess the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment in incidental SVT. METHODS: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials or prospective studies published up to June 2021. Efficacy outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Incidence rate ratios and 95% CIs for incidental vs symptomatic SVT were estimated before and after propensity-score matching. Multivariable Cox models were used considering anticoagulant treatment as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: In total, 493 patients with incidental SVT and 493 propensity-matched patients with symptomatic SVT were analyzed. Patients with incidental SVT were less likely to receive anticoagulant treatment (72.4% vs 83.6%). Incidence rate ratios (95% CI) for major bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause mortality in patients with incidental SVT compared with symptomatic SVT were 1.3 (0.8, 2.2), 2.0 (1.2, 3.3), and 0.5 (0.4, 0.7), respectively. In patients with incidental SVT, anticoagulant therapy was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.71), recurrent VTE (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.35). CONCLUSION: Patients with incidental SVT appeared to have a similar risk of major bleeding, a higher risk of recurrent thrombosis, but lower all-cause mortality than patients with symptomatic SVT. Anticoagulant therapy seemed safe and effective in patients with incidental SVT.