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.

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.

Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of early termination of cardiovascular clinical trials due to low recruitment: insights from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

BACKGROUND: Early termination of clinical trials due to low recruitment represents an understudied challenge for clinical research. We aimed to describe characteristics of cardiovascular trials terminated because of low recruitment and identify the major predictors of such early termination. METHODS: We reviewed all cardiovascular clinical trials (7,042 studies) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from February 29, 2000, to January 17, 2013, and assessed information about trials that were completed and those that were terminated early. Logistic regression models were developed to identify independent predictors of early termination due to low recruitment. RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 6,279 cardiovascular clinical trials, of which 684 (10.9%) were terminated prematurely. Of these halted trials, the main reason for termination was lower than expected recruitment (278 trials; 53.6%). When comparing trials that terminated early because of low recruitment with those that were completed, we found that studies funded by the National Institutes of Health or other US federal agencies (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.89), studies of behavior/diet intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.65), and single-arm design studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.78) were associated with a lower risk of early termination. University/hospital-funded (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10-2.10) and mixed-source-funded studies (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.52-3.01) were associated with a higher likelihood of early termination due to lower than expected recruitment rates. CONCLUSIONS: Low recruitment represents the main cause of early termination of cardiovascular clinical trials. Funding source, type of intervention, and study design are factors associated with early termination due to low recruitment and might be good targets for improving enrollment into cardiovascular clinical trials.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).