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.

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.

Timing of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Loading doses of atorvastatin did not show reduction on clinical outcomes in the overall population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Statins Evaluation in Coronary Procedures and Revascularization (SECURE-PCI) trial, but a potential benefit was identified in patients who subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: To determine whether periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin are associated with decreased 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS undergoing PCI according to type of ACS and timing of atorvastatin administration before PCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites that enrolled 4191 patients with ACS intended to be treated with PCI between April 18, 2012, and October 06, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin or matching placebo before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. By protocol, all patients (regardless of treatment group) received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE through 30 days, composed by all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Cox regression models adjusting for key baseline characteristics were used to assess the association between atorvastatin and MACE in patients undergoing PCI. Results: From the overall trial population, 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI (650 women [24.0%]; mean [SD] age, 62 [11.3] years). Loading atorvastatin was associated with reduced MACE at 30 days by 28% in the PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI 0.54-0.97; P = .03). Loading dose of atorvastatin was administered less than 12 hours before PCI in 2548 patients (95.3%) (45.1% < 2 hours and 54.3% between 2 and 12 hours). There was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of study drug administration. The treatment effect of loading atorvastatin was more pronounced in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92; P = .02; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.27; P = .43, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin appeared to reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days, most clearly in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This beneficial effect seemed to be preserved and consistent, irrespective of the timing of atorvastatin administration, including within 2 hours before PCI. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Effect of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin Prior to Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome The SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days. RESULTS Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, −0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management.

Effect of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin Prior to Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days. Results: Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, -0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Estratégias de recrutamento em pesquisa clínica / Recruitment strategies in clinical research

Durante o processo de execução de estudos clínicos multicêntricos, na seleção de centros de pesquisa participantes, consideram-se aspectos fundamentais para a boa condução dos protocolos como o seguimento dos padrões nacionaise internacionais de boas práticas clínicas em pesquisa(BPCs), conhecimento e adequada execução das normatizações nacionais e internacionais de pesquisa, atendimento aos voluntários ou sujeitos de pesquisa a qualquer evento adverso, infra-estrutura adequada, envolvimento de equipe multiprofissional qualificada e especializada. A despeito de esses pré-requisitos serem essenciais para as BPCs, há que se considerar que os centros de pesquisa são sempre passíveis de treinamento e qualificação, de acordo com seu planejamento e envolvimento; no entanto, absolutamente fundamental é a garantia de que o recrutamento, inclusão de sujeitos e a manutenção da adesão desses pacientes no estudo serão efetivas. Neste ambiente, o conhecimento e desenvolvimento de estratégias de recrutamento e seguimento de sujeitos de pesquisa promovem melhor desempenho nas inclusões dos estudos e, conseqüentemente, constante interesse de coordenadores e patrocinadores pelo centro, e maior probabilidade de participação em futuros estudos nacionais e internacionais. Este artigo apresenta normatizações vigentes e sua influência sobre recrutamento de pacientes, bem como discutirá aspectos de impacto na participação de sujeitos de pesquisa em estudos clínicos.

Monitoria em estudos clínicos / Monitoring visits in clinical research

A realização de um estudo clínico engloba múltiplas facetas, envolvendo sujeitos de pesquisa, investigadores clínicos e patrocinadores, no intuito de consolidar de forma objetiva e fidedigna a execução do protocolo de estudo e conseqüente geração de sólidas e robustas conclusões. A monitoria de um estudo clínico tem por objetivos garantir a segurança do sujeito de pesquisa e do pesquisador, avaliar a rastreabilidade dos dados e sua efetiva presença em documentos-fontes, avaliar a adequada adesão às normas de boas práticas clínicas (Good Clinical Pratices – GCPs)e às resoluções vigentes no País e, por fim, assegurar qualidade e idoneidade de dados. Este artigo descreve os objetivos da monitoria, as responsabilidades do monitor e alguns aspectos importantes sobre a visita de monitoria em um centro de pesquisa clínica.

Estudos de farmacoeconomia e análises econômicas: conceitos básicos / Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and economical analyses: basic concepts

A aplicabilidade clínica diária de inovações e evidências científicas têm oferecido relevante melhoria da morbidade e da mortalidade das mais distintas doenças, oferecendo também melhor expectativa em qualidade de vida. A disseminação de práticas que não objetivam desfechos relevantes (mortalidade e qualidade de vida) trouxe o consequüente conceito de otimização de recursos mesmo que, em se tratando de saúde humana, a ética norteie primordialmente as decisões. Neste cenário, as discussões relativas à ética dos lucros de provedores de produtos e serviços em saúde, além da viabilidade de tratamentos e iniciativas na área de saúde pública, passaram a ocupar relevante espaço na prática clínica diária dos profissionais de saúde. A chamada farmacoeconomia e as análises econômicas aplicadas à saúde nada mais são do que a aplicação dos princípios da economia ao estudo dos medicamentos e às práticas de saúde, preconizando a otimização na utilização de recursos financeiros sem prejuízo à qualidade e aos desfechos de tratamento. Comumente três tipos de análise têm se constituído mais aplicáveis nesse cenário: as de custo-benefício, custo-efetividade e custo-utilidade.