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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.