Guidance for Healthcare Providers on Newest Guidelines for Over-the-Counter Drug Treatment of Mild Symptoms of COVID-19.

On January 18, 2024, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their most recent guidelines for over-the-counter drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, the organization stated that "Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home. You can treat symptoms with over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), to help you feel better." In this review we consider the contributions of different types of evidence and conclude that healthcare providers should make individual clinical judgments for each of their patients in the selection of over-the-counter drugs to treat symptoms of COVID-19. This judgment should be based on the entire benefit to risk profile of the patient. It is our belief that the individual healthcare provider knows far more about each of his or her patients than anyone, including expert members of guideline committees. Their astute and judicious individual clinical decision-making for each individual patient based on all these considerations has the potential to do far more good than harm.

Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.

Training New DMC Members: A Call to Action.

Historically, clinical trialists developed DMC expertise and experience with "on the job training". Clinical trialists have recognized a large and growing gap between the demand and supply of trained DMC members due in part to the huge increase in ongoing clinical trials. A critical need exists to increase the supply of DMC trained clinicians and biostatisticians. Despite a rich collection of published training material, many have recommended a mentoring process to train clinical trialists and data scientists lacking DMC experience. We propose that academic, regulatory, industry and other leaders in clinical trials support including investigators lacking DMC experience as members of a DMC so that they can be trained to learn about the DMC processes during conduct of an actual trial".

Bringing data monitoring committee charters into the sunlight.

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.

The Data Monitoring Committee: A Collective or a Collection?

In this commentary, we urge that a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) should operate as a collective, that is, as a unitary whole. In so doing, its recommendations should emerge through a consensus development process, not through a vote of the members. The summary notes of its closed session, that is, its minutes, should report the recommendations of the DMC and, if necessary, the justification for those recommendations; it should not attribute opinions to individual members. Importantly, the proceedings of the DMC meetings should not be electronically recorded.

Dapagliflozin in heart failure with improved ejection fraction: a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial.

With modern treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF), indicative of impaired cardiac systolic function, patients may exhibit an increase in EF. Limited data are available regarding the clinical management of this growing population, categorized as heart failure with improved EF (HFimpEF), which has a high event rate and has been excluded from virtually all prior heart failure outcomes trials. In a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial ( NCT03619213 ), of a total of 6,263 participants with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular EF >40%, 1,151 (18%) had HFimpEF, defined as patients whose EF improved from ≤40% to >40%. Participants were randomized to 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo daily and the primary outcome of the trial was a composite of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (heart failure hospitalization or an urgent heart failure visit). Participants with HFimpEF had similar event rates to those with an EF consistently >40%. In participants with HFimpEF, dapagliflozin reduced the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.97), first worsening heart failure events (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.14), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41-0.96) and total worsening heart failure events (rate ratio = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.94) to a similar extent as for individuals with an EF consistently >40%. These data suggest that patients with HFimpEF who are symptomatic may benefit from the addition of a sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor to previously instituted guideline-directed medical therapy to further reduce morbidity and mortality.

Experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee for the RECOVERY trial, a large-scale adaptive platform randomised trial of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: To inform the oversight of future clinical trials during a pandemic, we summarise the experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the Randomised Evaluation of COVID therapy trial (RECOVERY), a large-scale randomised adaptive platform clinical trial of treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the first 24 months of the trial (March 2020 to February 2022), the DMC oversaw accumulating data for 14 treatments in adults (plus 10 in children) involving > 45,000 randomised patients. Five trial aspects key for the DMC in performing its role were: a large committee of members, including some with extensive DMC experience and others who had broad clinical expertise; clear strategic planning, communication, and responsiveness by the trial principal investigators; data collection and analysis systems able to cope with phases of very rapid recruitment and link to electronic health records; an ability to work constructively with regulators (and other DMCs) to address emerging concerns without the need to release unblinded mortality results; and the use of videoconferencing systems that enabled national and international members to meet at short notice and from home during the pandemic when physical meetings were impossible. Challenges included that the first four treatments introduced were effectively 'competing' for patients (increasing pressure to make rapid decisions on each one); balancing the global health imperative to report on findings with the need to maintain confidentiality until the results were sufficiently certain to appropriately inform treatment decisions; and reliably assessing safety, especially for newer agents introduced after the initial wave and in the small numbers of pregnant women and children included. We present a series of case vignettes to illustrate some of the issues and the DMC decision-making related to hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, casirivimab + imdevimab, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVERY's streamlined adaptive platform design, linked to hospital-level and population-level health data, enabled the rapid and reliable assessment of multiple treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The later introduction of factorial assessments increased the trial's efficiency, without compromising the DMC's ability to assess safety and efficacy. Requests for the release of unblinded primary outcome data to regulators at points when data were not mature required significant efforts in communication with the regulators by the DMC to avoid inappropriate early trial termination.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction According to Age: The DELIVER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction markedly increases with age, with older individuals disproportionately facing excess risk for mortality and hospitalization. METHODS: The DELIVER trial (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) randomized patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-IV and left ventricular ejection fraction >40% to either dapagliflozin or placebo for a median follow-up period of 2.3 years. We examined efficacy and safety outcomes by age categories (<55, 55-64, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and across age as a continuous measure. RESULTS: Among 6263 randomized patients (aged 40-99 years, mean age 71.7±9.6 years), 338 (5.4%) were <55 years, 1007 (16.1%) were 55-64 years, 2326 (37.1%) were 65 to 74 years, and 2592 (41.4%) were ≥75 years. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome compared with placebo in all age categories (Pinteraction=0.95) and across the age spectrum as a continuous function (Pinteraction=0.76). Similar benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, with no significant interaction between randomized treatment and age category. Adverse events occurred more frequently with increasing age, but there were no significant differences in predefined safety outcomes between patients randomized to dapagliflozin and placebo across all age categories. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction enrolled in DELIVER, dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure events across the spectrum of age, with a consistent safety profile, including among the traditionally under-treated older segment of patients ≥75 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03619213.

Dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction in patients with heart failure: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

Whether the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk of a range of morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure regardless of ejection fraction is unknown. A patient-level pooled meta-analysis of two trials testing dapagliflozin in participants with heart failure and different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% and >40%) was pre-specified to examine the effect of treatment on endpoints that neither trial, individually, was powered for and to test the consistency of the effect of dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fractions. The pre-specified endpoints were: death from cardiovascular causes; death from any cause; total hospital admissions for heart failure; and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)). A total of 11,007 participants with a mean ejection fraction of 44% (s.d. 14%) were included. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.97; P = 0.01), death from any cause (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; P = 0.03), total hospital admissions for heart failure (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65-0.78; P < 0.001) and MACEs (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00; P = 0.045). There was no evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin differed by ejection fraction. In a patient-level pooled meta-analysis covering the full range of ejection fractions in patients with heart failure, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes and hospital admissions for heart failure (PROSPERO: CRD42022346524).

Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.).

Dapagliflozin in Patients Recently Hospitalized With Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Patients recently hospitalized for heart failure (HF) are at high risk for rehospitalization and death. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes and response to dapagliflozin in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who were enrolled during or following hospitalization. METHODS: The DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVES of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial randomized patients with HF and LVEF >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo. DELIVER permitted randomization during or shortly after hospitalization for HF in clinically stable patients off intravenous HF therapies. This prespecified analysis investigated whether recent HF hospitalization modified risk of clinical events or response to dapagliflozin. The primary outcome was worsening HF event or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Of 6,263 patients in DELIVER, 654 (10.4%) were randomized during HF hospitalization or within 30 days of discharge. Recent HF hospitalization was associated with greater risk of the primary outcome after multivariable adjustment (HR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.60-2.21; P < 0.001). Dapagliflozin reduced the primary outcome by 22% in recently hospitalized patients (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.03) and 18% in patients without recent hospitalization (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94; Pinteraction = 0.71). Rates of adverse events, including volume depletion, diabetic ketoacidosis, or renal events, were similar with dapagliflozin and placebo in recently hospitalized patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin safely reduced risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death similarly in patients with and without history of recent HF hospitalization. Starting dapagliflozin during or shortly after HF hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF appears safe and effective. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Baseline Characteristics of Patients With HF With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: DELIVER Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This report describes the baseline clinical profiles and management of DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial participants and how these compare with those in other contemporary heart failure with preserved ejection fraction trials. BACKGROUND: The DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the effects of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on cardiovascular death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or urgent HF visits in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Adults with symptomatic HF and LVEF >40%, with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and evidence of structural heart disease were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or matching placebo. RESULTS: A total of 6,263 patients were randomized (mean age: 72 ± 10 years; 44% women; 45% type 2 diabetes mellitus; 45% with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2; and 57% with history of atrial fibrillation or flutter). Most participants had New York Heart Association functional class II symptoms (75%). Baseline mean LVEF was 54.2 ± 8.8% and median NT-proBNP of 1,399 pg/mL (IQR: 962 to 2,210 pg/mL) for patients in atrial fibrillation/flutter compared with 716 pg/mL (IQR: 469 to 1,281 pg/mL) in those who were not. Patients in both hospitalized and ambulatory settings were enrolled, including 10% enrolled in-hospital or within 30 days of a hospitalization for HF. Eighteen percent of participants had HF with improved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: DELIVER is the largest and broadest clinical trial of this population to date and enrolled high-risk, well-treated patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [NCT03619213]).

The challenges of data safety monitoring for a pragmatic study: Lessons from the ADAPTABLE study.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs) play a critical role in protecting the safety of participants and integrity of clinical studies. While there are well-established DMC guidelines for traditional, randomized controlled trials, the clinical trial community is still in the search for best practices in data and safety monitoring in pragmatic clinical trials. ADAPTABLE was a large, open label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial, harnessing real world data from multiple sources and studying the comparative effectiveness of the two most common dosages of aspirin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Specific issues arose in ADAPTABLE such as data quality, information latency, and protocol adherence, and these issues were both expected and unexpected features of the pragmatic study design. These issues imposed great challenges to the DMC members who were tasked to make critical decisions during the study. This article summarizes the unique experience of the ADAPTABLE DMC, including the internal debates and concerns, the concerted efforts to accomplish its mission, and the special contribution of the patient representatives. We also offer recommendations on data and safety monitoring for future pragmatic trials.

Ivermectin in COVID-19: The Case for a Moratorium on Prescriptions.

In treatment or prevention of COVID-19, ivermectin is not approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nonetheless, in the US, prescriptions of ivermectin by healthcare providers have increased > tenfold from 3589 per week pre-COVID-19 to 39,102. Ivermectin is FDA approved for animals to treat parasites and for humans to treat intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis orally, and ectoparasites and skin conditions topically. It is not a benign drug, with reported side effects including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms. The evidence to support ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 includes some basic research and inconsistent clinical observations that contribute to the formulation of a hypothesis of efficacy in COVID-19. At present, data from peer-reviewed published randomized trials of sufficient size, dose, and duration to reliably test the hypothesis of the most plausible small to moderate benefits on clinically relevant endpoints are sparse. In addition to the US FDA, the US National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and European Medicines Agency have all advised against ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials. For ivermectin in treatment or prevention of COVID-19, healthcare providers should reassure all patients that if sufficient evidence were to emerge, then this drug could be considered a therapeutic innovation and regulatory authorities would approve the drug. In the meanwhile, we strongly recommend a moratorium on the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 except in randomized trials to provide the most reliable test of the hypothesis.

Dapagliflozin and new-onset type 2 diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease or heart failure: pooled analysis of the DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease and heart failure are insulin resistant states associated with a high incidence of diabetes. We assessed the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset type 2 diabetes in a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials. METHODS: This study is a pooled analysis of individual participant data from two phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, clinical trials. Participants with no history of diabetes and HbA1c less than 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) at baseline were included in this pooled analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both DAPA-CKD and DAPA-HF trials and is the focus of this analysis. New-onset type 2 diabetes was identified by serial trial measurements of HbA1c (two consecutive values ≥6·5% [≥48 mmol/mol]) or following a clinical diagnosis of diabetes between trial visits. Time to new-onset type 2 diabetes was analysed in a Cox proportional Hazards model from random assignment to end of treatment. FINDINGS: 4003 participants (1398 [34·9%] from the DADA-CKD trial and 2605 [65·1%] from the DAPA-HF trial) were included in our analysis: 1995 (49·8%) had received dapagliflozin and 2008 (50·2%) had received placebo. Over a median follow-up of 21·2 months (IQR 16·0 to 25·4), 126 (6·3%) of 2008 patients in the placebo group (event rate 3·9 per 100 patient-years) and 85 (4·3%) of 1995 patients in the dapagliflozin group (event rate 2·6 per 100 patient-years) developed type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0·67 [95% CI 0·51 to 0·88]; p=0·0040). There was no heterogeneity between studies (p interaction 0·77) and there was no clear evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin varied in prespecified subgroups including sex, age, glycaemic status, BMI, glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and baseline cardiovascular medication use. More than 90% of the participants who developed type 2 diabetes had prediabetes at baseline (HbA1c 5·7% to 6·4% [39 to 46 mmol/mol]). Mean HbA1c remained unchanged (placebo-adjusted change in the dapagliflozin group of -0·01% [95% CI -0·03 to 0·01], -0·1 mmol/mol [95% CI -0·3 to 0·1] at 12 months). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes in participants with chronic kidney disease and HF without a reduction in HbA1c. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Data monitoring committee interim reports: We must get there soon!

Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.