Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban versus no prophylaxis in high-risk patients after hospitalisation for COVID-19: an economic modelling study.

Background: In patients at high risk of thromboembolism who were discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days significantly improved clinical outcomes, reducing thrombotic events compared with no post-discharge anticoagulation. The present study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this anticoagulation strategy. Methods: Using the database of the MICHELLE trial, we developed a decision tree to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days versus no thromboprophylaxis in high-risk post-discharge patients for COVID-19 through an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings: 318 patients in 14 centres in Brazil were enrolled in the primary MICHELLE trial. The mean age was 57.1 years (SD 15.2), 127 (40%) were women, 191 (60%) were men, and the mean body-mass index was 29.7 kg/m2 (SD 5.6). Rivaroxaban 10 mg per day orally for 35 days after discharge decreased the risk of events defined by the primary efficacy outcome by 67% (relative risk 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.90; p = 0.03). The mean cost for thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban was $53.37/patient, and no prophylaxis was $34.22/patient, with an incremental cost difference of $19.15. The effectiveness means obtained in the intervention group was 0.1457, while in the control group was 0.1421, determining an incremental QALY difference of 0.0036. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5385.52/QALY. Interpretation: Extended treatment with Rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge for high-risk patients with COVID-19 is a cost-effective treatment option. Funding: Modest funding was provided by Science Valley Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Efficacy and safety of Ixekizumab vs. low-dose IL-2 vs. Colchicine vs. standard of care in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-critical COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical trial (STRUCK: Survival Trial Using Cytokine Inhibitors).

BACKGROUND: Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization continue to appear in vulnerable populations, highlighting the importance of novel treatments. The hyperinflammatory response underlies the severity of the disease, and targeting this pathway may be useful. Herein, we tested whether immunomodulation focusing on interleukin (IL)-6, IL-17, and IL-2, could improve the clinical outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in Brazil. Sixty hospitalized patients with moderate-to-critical COVID-19 received in addition to standard of care (SOC): IL-17 inhibitor (ixekizumab 80 mg SC/week) 1 dose every 4 weeks; low-dose IL-2 (1.5 million IU per day) for 7 days or until discharge; or indirect IL-6 inhibitor (colchicine) orally (0.5 mg) every 8 hours for 3 days, followed by 4 weeks at 0.5 mg 2x/day; or SOC alone. The primary outcome was accessed in the "per protocol" population as the proportion of patients with clinical improvement, defined as a decrease greater or equal to two points on the World Health Organization's (WHO) seven-category ordinal scale by day 28. RESULTS: All treatments were safe, and the efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly from those of SOC. Interestingly, in the colchicine group, all participants had an improvement of greater or equal to two points on the WHO seven-category ordinal scale and no deaths or patient deterioration were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ixekizumab, colchicine, and IL-2 were demonstrated to be safe but ineffective for COVID-19 treatment. These results must be interpreted cautiously because of the limited sample size.

Efficacy and safety of Ixekizumab vs. low-dose IL-2 vs. Colchicine vs. standard of care in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-critical COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical trial (STRUCK: Survival Trial Using Cytokine Inhibitors)

ABSTRACT Background: Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization continue to appear in vulnerable populations, highlighting the importance of novel treatments. The hyperinflammatory response underlies the severity of the disease, and targeting this pathway may be useful. Herein, we tested whether immunomodulation focusing on interleukin (IL)-6, IL-17, and IL-2, could improve the clinical outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19. Methods: This multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in Brazil. Sixty hospitalized patients with moderate-to-critical COVID-19 received in addition to standard of care (SOC): IL-17 inhibitor (ixekizumab 80 mg SC/week) 1 dose every 4 weeks; low-dose IL-2 (1.5 million IU per day) for 7 days or until discharge; or indirect IL-6 inhibitor (colchicine) orally (0.5 mg) every 8 hours for 3 days, followed by 4 weeks at 0.5 mg 2x/day; or SOC alone. The primary outcome was accessed in the "per protocol" population as the proportion of patients with clinical improvement, defined as a decrease greater or equal to two points on the World Health Organization's (WHO) seven-category ordinal scale by day 28. Results: All treatments were safe, and the efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly from those of SOC. Interestingly, in the colchicine group, all participants had an improvement of greater or equal to two points on the WHO seven-category ordinal scale and no deaths or patient deterioration were observed. Conclusions: Ixekizumab, colchicine, and IL-2 were demonstrated to be safe but ineffective for COVID-19 treatment. These results must be interpreted cautiously because of the limited sample size.

Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin for Thromboprophylaxis After major Gynecological Cancer Surgery: The VALERIA Trial : Venous thromboembolism prophylAxis after gynecoLogical pElvic cancer surgery with RIvaroxaban versus enoxAparin (VALERIA trial).

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after major gynecological cancer surgery might be an alternative to parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery were randomized at hospital discharge to receive rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a combination of symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death or asymptomatic VTE at day 30. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Two hundred and twenty-eight patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n = 114)or enoxaparin (n = 114). The trial was stopped due to a lower-than-expected event rate. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 3.51% of patients assigned to rivaroxaban and in 4.39% of patients assigned to enoxaparin (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.90; p = 0.7344). Patients assigned to rivaroxaban had no primary bleeding event, and 3 patients (2.63%) in the enoxaparin group had a major or CRNM bleeding event (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.007 to 2.73; P = 0.1963). In patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 30 days had similar rates of thrombotic and bleeding events compared to parenteral enoxaparin 40 mg daily. While the power is limited due to not reaching the intended sample size, our results support the hypothesis that DOACs might be an attractive alternative strategy to LMWH to prevent VTE in this high-risk population.

Rivaroxaban with Aspirin Versus Aspirin for Peripheral Arterial Disease and Intermittent Claudication. Rationale and Design of the COMPASS CLAUDICATION Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial demonstrated that in patients with peripheral arterial disease, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin reduces the risk of major adverse limb events, but it is not known whether this combination can also improve symptoms in patients with intermittent claudication. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the combination on claudication distance. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty-eight patients with intermittent claudication will be randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily or aspirin 100 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in claudication distance from the baseline to 24 weeks, measured by 6 min walking test and treadmill test. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The COMPASS CLAUDICATION trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the effect of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin on claudication distance in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

Medically Ill hospitalized Patients for COVID-19 THrombosis Extended ProphyLaxis with rivaroxaban ThErapy: Rationale and Design of the MICHELLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The devastating Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a high prothrombotic state. It is unclear if the coagulation abnormalities occur because of the direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 or indirectly by the cytokine storm and endothelial damage or by a combination of mechanisms. There is a clear indication of in-hospital pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for every patient with COVID-19 after bleed risk assessment. However, there is much debate regarding the best dosage regimen, and there is no consensus on the role of extended thromboprophylaxis. DESIGN: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 35 ± 4 days versus no intervention after hospital discharge in COVID-19 patients who were at increased risk for VTE and have received standard parenteral VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. The composite efficacy endpoint is a combination of symptomatic VTE, VTE-related death, VTE detected by bilateral lower limbs venous duplex scan and computed tomography pulmonary angiogram on day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge and symptomatic arterial thromboembolism (myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, major adverse limb events, and cardiovascular death) up to day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge. The key safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding according to ISTH criteria. SUMMARY: The MICHELLE trial is expected to provide high-quality evidence around the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 and will help guide medical decisions in clinical practice.1.

Comparative Studies on the Anticoagulant Profile of Branded Enoxaparin and a New Biosimilar Version.

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) represent depolymerized heparin prepared by various methods that exhibit differential, biochemical and pharmacological profiles. Enoxaparin is prepared by benzylation followed by alkaline depolymerization of porcine heparin. Upon the expiration of its patent, several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin have become available. Heparinox (Sodic enoxaparine; Cristália Produtos Químicos Farmacêuticos LTDA, Sao Paulo, Brazil) is a new biosimilar form of enoxaparin. We assessed the molecular weight and the biochemical profile of Heparinox and compared its properties to the original branded enoxaparin (Lovenox; Sanofi, Paris, France). Clotting profiles compared included activated clotting time, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and thrombin time (TT). Anti-protease assays included anti-factor Xa and anti-factor IIa activities. Thrombin generation was measured using a calibrated automated thrombogram and thrombokinetic profile included peak thrombin, lag time and area under the curve. USP potency was determined using commercially available assay kits. Molecular weight profiling was determined using high performance liquid chromatography. We determined that Heparinox and Lovenox were comparable in their molecular weight profile. Th anticoagulant profile of the branded and biosimilar version were also similar in the clot based aPTT and TT. Similarly, the anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities were comparable in the products. No differences were noted in the thrombin generation inhibitory profile of the branded and biosimilar versions of enoxaparin. Our studies suggest that Heparinox is bioequivalent to the original branded enoxaparin based upon in vitro tests however will require further in vivo studies in animal models and humans to determine their clinical bioequivalence.

Rationale and design for the study Apixaban versus ClopidoGRel on a background of aspirin in patient undergoing InfraPoPliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: AGRIPPA trial.

BACKGROUND: New antithrombotic strategies that reduce primary thrombosis and restenosis might improve vascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing arterial angioplasty. The study objective is to evaluate the potential benefit of apixaban plus aspirin compared with standard of care dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in reducing thrombotic restenosis and artery re-occlusion in patients undergoing endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, parallel-group, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint adjudication, proof-of-concept, exploratory trial aims to randomize 200 patients 72 hours after successful infrapopliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia (CLI). Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily) for 12 months or clopidogrel (75 mg daily) for at least 3 months on a background of aspirin (100 mg once daily) for 12 months. The primary endpoint is the composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation, or restenosis/occlusion (RAS) in addition to major adverse cardiovascular events - MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) at 12 months. The primary safety endpoint is the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding at 12 months. SUMMARY: This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with DAPT (clopidogrel plus aspirin) in patients with CLI undergoing endovascular infrapopliteal revascularization and might prove the concept of an alternative antithrombotic regimen for these patients to be tested in a future large randomized clinical trial.

Efeitos do treinamento físico sobre a resistência mecânica do terço proximal do fêmur de ratos / Effects of physical training on the mechanical resistance of rat femur proximal thirds

OBJETIVO: Analisar o comportamento mecânico do terço proximal do fêmur de ratos submetidos ao treinamento aeróbio e resistido crônicos. MÉTODOS: Ratos Wistar machos (80 dias, 300 a 350 g) foram divididos em 3 grupos (n=8 por grupo): Treinamento aeróbio/8 semanas (TA), Treinamento resistido/8 semanas (TR) e controle/8 semanas (CO). Ao término do período de treinamento os animais foram sacrificados e o fêmur direito coletado. Para análise do comportamento mecânico do fêmur foram realizados ensaios de flexo-compressão. RESULTADOS: O treinamento resistido ocasionou redução significante da força máxima (Fmáx) do fêmur. Por outro lado, promoveu um aumento (23,7 por cento) relevante, porém não significante, da deformação da força máxima (DFmáx). O treinamento aeróbio não afetou a Fmáx, porém promoveu uma redução (26,6 por cento) considerável, também não significante, da DFmáx. CONCLUSÕES: Os resultados demonstram que o treinamento resistido e aeróbio, promoveram redução da Fmáx e da DFmáx óssea, respectivamente. Os dados evidenciam uma ação diferencial de ambos os modelos de treinamento físico sobre as propriedades mecânicas do fêmur de ratos.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the mechanical behavior of rat femur proximal thirds submitted to chronic aerobic and resistance training. METHODS: Male Wistar rats (80 days of age, weighing 300 to 350 g) were divided into 3 groups (n=8 per group): control (CO), aerobic training (TA) and resistance training (TR). At the end of the training, the animals were euthanized and the right femur was collected. Flexion-compression tests were carried out to analyze the mechanical behavior of the femurs. RESULTS: The resistance training promoted a significant reduction in maximum force (Fmáx) of the femur. However, it also promoted a relevant increase (23.7 percent), though without statistical significance, in maximum force deformation (DFmáx). The aerobic training did not affect maximum force, however, it caused a considerable reduction in DFmáx (26.6 percent), though this was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that resistance and aerobic training promoted a reduction in the Fmáx and DFmáx, respectively. The data showed a different response of both physical training models on the mechanical properties of the rat femurs.