Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the action randomized clinical trial

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Long-term outcomes among stable post-acute myocardial infarction patients living in rural versus urban areas: insights from the prospective, observational TIGRIS registry.

BACKGROUND: Insights on the differences in clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and health resource utilisation (HRU) with different levels of care available to post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) populations in rural and urban settings are limited. METHODS: The long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement, and healthcare Resource utilisation of stable coronary artery dISease (TIGRIS), a prospective, observational registry, enrolled 8452 patients aged ≥50 years 1-3 years post-AMI from June 2013 to November 2014 from 24 countries in Asia Pacific/Australia, Europe, North America and South America. Differences in QoL (measured using the EuroQol Research Foundation instrument) and HRU between patients in rural and urban settings were evaluated in this post hoc analysis. The incidence of clinical endpoints (cardiovascular (CV) death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation and stroke; bleeding; and all-cause mortality) was analysed. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months for 24 months. RESULTS: There were fewer hospitalisations and visits to general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists in the rural versus urban populations (adjusted event rate ratio (ERR)=0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00, p=0.04); ERR=0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92, p<0.001); ERR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.92, p<0.001), respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed between rural and urban populations in all-cause death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation, CV death, stroke, major bleeding events and health-related QoL. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.15) for the composite of CV death, AMI and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Living in rural areas was associated with fewer GP/cardiologist visits and hospitalisations; no significant differences in clinical outcomes and QoL were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01866904.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04360720).

Long-term mortality after acute coronary syndromes among patients with normal, mildly reduced, or reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% is a well-established risk factor for mortality after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, the long-term prognostic impact of mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) (LVEF 41-49%) after ACS remains less clear. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective study enrolling patients admitted with ACS included in a single-centre databank. LVEF was assessed by echocardiography during index hospitalization. Patients were divided in the following categories according to LVEF: normal (LVEF ≥ 50%), mildly reduced (LVEF 41-49%), and reduced (LVEF ≤ 40%). The endpoint of interest was all-cause death after hospital discharge. A multivariable Cox model was used to adjust for confounders. A total of 3200 patients were included (1952 with normal EF, 375 with mildly reduced EF, and 873 with reduced EF). The estimated cumulative incidence rates of mortality at 10 years for patients with normal, mildly reduced, and reduced EF were 24.8%, 33.5%, and 41.3%, respectively. After adjustments, the presence of reduced EF was associated with higher mortality compared with normal EF [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36-1.96; P < 0.001], as was mildly reduced EF compared with normal EF (adjusted HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.05-1.68; P = 0.019). The presence of reduced EF was not associated with a statistically significantly higher mortality compared with mildly reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.96-1.57; P = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, mildly reduced EF measured in the acute phase was associated with higher long-term mortality compared with patients with normal EF. These data emphasize the importance of anti-remodelling therapies for ACS patients who have LVEF in the mildly reduced range.

Effects of DPP4 Inhibitor in Platelet Reactivity and Other Cardiac Risk Markers in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presents several challenges in patients with diabetes, among them the higher rate of recurrent thrombotic events, hyperglycemia and risk of subsequent heart failure (HF). The objective of our study was to evaluate effects of DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on platelet reactivity (main objective) and cardiac risk markers. METHODS: We performed a single-center double-blind randomized trial. A total of 70 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with AMI Killip ≤2 on dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) were randomized to receive sitagliptin 100 mg or saxagliptin 5 mg daily or matching placebo. Platelet reactivity was assessed at baseline, 4 days (primary endpoint) and 30 days (secondary endpoint) after randomization, using VerifyNow Aspirin™ assay, expressed as aspirin reaction units (ARUs); B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in pg/mL was assessed at baseline and 30 days after (secondary endpoint). RESULTS: Mean age was 62.6 ± 8.8 years, 45 (64.3%) male, and 52 (74.3%) of patients presented with ST-segment elevation MI. For primary endpoint, there were no differences in mean platelet reactivity (p = 0.51) between the DPP-4i (8.00 {-65.00; 63.00}) and placebo (-14.00 {-77.00; 52.00}) groups, as well in mean BNP levels (p = 0.14) between DPP-4i (-36.00 {-110.00; 15.00}) and placebo (-13.00 {-50.00; 27.00}). There was no difference between groups in cardiac adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: DPP4 inhibitor did not reduce platelet aggregation among patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized with AMI. Moreover, the use of DPP-4i did not show an increase in BNP levels or in the incidence of cardiac adverse events. These findings suggests that DPP-4i could be an option for management of T2DM patients with acute MI.

Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel on Coronary Microcirculation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Clopidogrel has been demonstrated to be effective in improving coronary microcirculation (CM) among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytics. Ticagrelor is a more potent adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor blocker proven to be superior to clopidogrel among patients with acute coronary syndromes. The present study aimed to compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on CM in patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics. METHODS: The present study prospectively included 48 patients participating in the TREAT trial, which randomly assigned patients with STEMI undergoing fibrinolysis to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. The primary endpoint of this study was the evaluation of the CM using the global myocardial perfusion score index (global MPSI) obtained by myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE). Platelet aggregation to ADP was evaluated by Multiplate® and expressed as area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The global MPSI demonstrated no differences between the groups [mean 1.4 (1.2-1.5) in the ticagrelor group and 1.2 (1.2-1.5) in the clopidogrel group (p = 0.41)]. Platelet aggregability was lower in the ticagrelor group (18.1 ± 9.7 AUC), compared to the clopidogrel group (26.1 ± 12.5 AUC, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found no improvement in coronary microcirculation with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics, despite the fact that platelet aggregation to ADP was lower with ticagrelor. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03104062.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Tofacitinib in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).

Platelet Reactivity and Coagulation Markers in Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUTION: COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. However, the contribution of platelet reactivity (PR) to the aetiology of the increased thrombotic risk associated with COVID-19 remains unclear. Our aim was to evaluate PR in stable patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with respiratory symptoms (mainly dyspnoea and dry cough), in comparison with a control group comprised of non-hospitalized healthy controls. METHODS: Observational, case control study that included patients with confirmed COVID-19 (COVID-19 group, n = 60) and healthy individuals matched by age and sex (control group, n = 60). Multiplate electrode aggregometry (MEA) tests were used to assess PR with adenosine diphosphate (MEA-ADP, low PR defined as < 53 AUC), arachidonic acid (MEA-ASPI, low PR < 86 AUC) and thrombin receptor-activating peptide 6 (MEA-TRAP, low PR < 97 AUC) in both groups. RESULTS: The rates of low PR with MEA-ADP were 27.5% in the COVID-19 group and 21.7% in the control group (OR = 1.60, p = 0.20); with MEA-ASPI, the rates were, respectively, 37.5% and 22.5% (OR = 3.67, p < 0.001); and with MEA-TRAP, the incidences were 48.5% and 18.8%, respectively (OR = 9.58, p < 0.001). Levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) were higher in the COVID-19 group in comparison with the control group (all p < 0.05). Thromboelastometry was utilized in a subgroup of patients and showed a hypercoagulable state in the COVID-19 group. CONCLUSION: Patients hospitalized with non-severe COVID-19 had lower PR compared to healthy controls, despite having higher levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and PAI-1, and hypercoagulability by thromboelastometry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04447131.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. DESIGN: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

Platelet Reactivity in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Awaiting Surgical Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Approximately 10% to 15% of these patients will undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for index events, and current guidelines recommend stopping clopidogrel at least 5 days before CABG. This waiting time has clinical and economic implications. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate if a platelet reactivity-based strategy is noninferior to standard of care for 24-h post-CABG bleeding. METHODS: In this randomized, open label noninferiority trial, 190 patients admitted with ACS with indications for CABG and on aspirin and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, were assigned to either control group, P2Y12 receptor inhibitor withdrawn 5 to 7 days before CABG, or intervention group, daily measurements of platelet reactivity by Multiplate analyzer (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Vienna, Austria) with CABG planned the next working day after platelet reactivity normalization (pre-defined as ≥46 aggregation units). RESULTS: Within the first 24 h of CABG, the median chest tube drainage was 350 ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 250 to 475 ml) and 350 ml (IQR: 255 to 500 ml) in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p for noninferiority <0.001). The median waiting period between the decision to undergo CABG and the procedure was 112 h (IQR: 66 to 142 h) and 136 h (IQR: 112 to 161 h) (p < 0.001), respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, a 6.4% decrease in the median in-hospital expenses was observed in the intervention group (p = 0.014), with 11.2% decrease in the analysis per protocol (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy based on platelet reactivity-guided is noninferior to the standard of care in patients with ACS awaiting CABG regarding peri-operative bleeding, significantly shortens the waiting time to CABG, and decreases hospital expenses. (Evaluation of Platelet Aggregability in the Release of CABG in Patients With ACS With DAPT; NCT02516267).

Factors associated with actively working in the very long-term following acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Returning to work after an episode of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is challenging for many patients, and has both personal and social impacts. There are limited data regarding the working status in the very long-term after ACS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,632 patients who were working prior to hospitalization for ACS in a quaternary hospital and were followed-up for up to 17 years. Adjusted models were developed to analyze the variables independently associated with actively working at the last contact, and a prognostic predictive index for not working at follow-up was developed. RESULTS: The following variables were significantly and independently associated with actively working at the last contact: age>median (hazard-ratio [HR], 0.76, p<0.001); male sex (HR, 1.52, p<0.001); government health insurance (HR, 1.36, p<0.001); history of angina (HR, 0.69, p<0.001) or myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 0.76, p=0.005); smoking (HR, 0.81, p=0.015); ST-elevation MI (HR, 0.81, p=0.021); anterior-wall MI (HR, 0.75, p=0.001); non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR, 0.77, p=0.002); fibrinolysis (HR, 0.61, p<0.001); cardiogenic shock (HR, 0.60, p=0.023); statin (HR, 3.01, p<0.001), beta-blocker (HR, 1.26, p=0.020), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) (HR, 1.37, p=0.001) at hospital discharge; and MI at follow-up (HR, 0.72, p=0.001). The probability of not working at the last contact ranged from 24.2% for patients with no variables, up to 80% for patients with six or more variables. CONCLUSIONS: In patients discharged after ACS, prior and in-hospital clinical variables, as well as the quality of care at discharge, have a great impact on the long-term probability of actively working.

Factors associated with actively working in the very long-term following acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVES: Returning to work after an episode of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is challenging for many patients, and has both personal and social impacts. There are limited data regarding the working status in the very long-term after ACS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,632 patients who were working prior to hospitalization for ACS in a quaternary hospital and were followed-up for up to 17 years. Adjusted models were developed to analyze the variables independently associated with actively working at the last contact, and a prognostic predictive index for not working at follow-up was developed. RESULTS: The following variables were significantly and independently associated with actively working at the last contact: age>median (hazard-ratio [HR], 0.76, p<0.001); male sex (HR, 1.52, p<0.001); government health insurance (HR, 1.36, p<0.001); history of angina (HR, 0.69, p<0.001) or myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 0.76, p=0.005); smoking (HR, 0.81, p=0.015); ST-elevation MI (HR, 0.81, p=0.021); anterior-wall MI (HR, 0.75, p=0.001); non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR, 0.77, p=0.002); fibrinolysis (HR, 0.61, p<0.001); cardiogenic shock (HR, 0.60, p=0.023); statin (HR, 3.01, p<0.001), beta-blocker (HR, 1.26, p=0.020), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) (HR, 1.37, p=0.001) at hospital discharge; and MI at follow-up (HR, 0.72, p=0.001). The probability of not working at the last contact ranged from 24.2% for patients with no variables, up to 80% for patients with six or more variables. CONCLUSIONS: In patients discharged after ACS, prior and in-hospital clinical variables, as well as the quality of care at discharge, have a great impact on the long-term probability of actively working.

Diabetes association with self-reported health, resource utilization, and prognosis post-myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. We compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and clinical outcomes of stable post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with and without DM. HYPOTHESIS: In post-MI patients, DM is associated with worse HRQoL, increased HRU, and worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: The prospective, observational long-term risk, clinical management, and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery disease study obtained data from 8968 patients aged ≥50 years 1 to 3 years post-MI (369 centers; 25 countries). Patients with ≥1 of the following risk factors were included: age ≥65 years, history of a second MI >1 year before enrollment, multivessel coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance ≥15 and <60 mL/min, and DM treated with medication. Self-reported health status was assessed at baseline, 1 and 2 years and converted to EQ-5D scores. The main outcome measures were baseline HRQoL and HRU during follow-up. RESULTS: DM at enrollment was 33% (2959 patients, 869 insulin treated). Mean baseline EQ-5D score (0.86 vs 0.82; P < .0001) was higher; mean number of hospitalizations (0.38 vs 0.50, P < .0001) and mean length of stay (LoS; 9.3 vs 11.5; P = .001) were lower in patients without vs with DM. All-cause death and the composite of CV death, MI, and stroke were significantly higher in DM patients, with adjusted 2-year rate ratios of 1.43 (P < .01) and 1.55 (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stable post-MI patients with DM (especially insulin treated) had poorer EQ-5D scores, higher hospitalization rates and LoS, and worse clinical outcomes vs those without DM. Strategies focusing specifically on this high-risk population should be developed to improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01866904 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Relation of High Lipoprotein (a) Concentrations to Platelet Reactivity in Individuals with and Without Coronary Artery Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study addressing the relationship between Lp(a) and platelet reactivity in primary and secondary prevention. METHODS: Lp(a) was evaluated in 396 individuals with (82.3%) and without (17.7%) obstructive CAD. The population was divided into two groups according to Lp(a) concentrations with a cutoff value of 50 mg/dL. The primary objective was to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet reactivity using the VerifyNow™ P2Y12 assay. Platelet reactivity was also induced by arachidonic acid and collagen-epinephrine (C-EPI) and assessed by Multiplate™, platelet function analyzer™ 100 (PFA-100), and light transmission aggregometry (LTA) assays. Secondary objectives included the assessment of the primary endpoint in individuals with or without CAD. RESULTS: Overall, 294 (74.2%) individuals had Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL [median (IQR) 13.2 (5.8-27.9) mg/dL] and 102 (25.8%) had Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL [82.5 (67.6-114.5) mg/dL], P < 0.001. Univariate analysis in the entire population revealed no differences in ADP-induced platelet reactivity between individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL (249.4 ± 43.8 PRU) versus Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL (243.1 ± 52.2 PRU), P = 0.277. Similar findings were present in individuals with (P = 0.228) and without (P = 0.669) CAD, and regardless of the agonist used or method of analysis (all P > 0.05). Finally, multivariable analysis did not show a significant association between ADP-induced platelet reactivity and Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL [adjusted OR = 1.00 [(95% CI 0.99-1.01), P = 0.590]. CONCLUSION: In individuals with or without CAD, Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL was not associated with higher platelet reactivity.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).