Abstract

IMPORTANCE Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. OBJECTIVE To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. INTERVENTIONS Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. RESULTS On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) following life-threatening COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Open-label, randomized clinical trial of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with life-threatening COVID-19 [positive real-time-polymerase-chain-reaction test, plus acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis, organ failure, hyperinflammation]. The study was terminated after 87/120 patients were enrolled. INTERVENTION AND RANDOMIZATION Standard treatment plus TPE (n = 43) versus standard treatment (n = 44), and stratified by peripheral arterial oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO(2)/FiO(2)) ratio (> 150 versus ≤ 150). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were 35-day mortality and TPE safety. Secondary outcomes were association between TPE and mortality, improvement in Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score, change in inflammatory biomarkers, days on mechanical ventilation (MV), and ICU length-of-stay. RESULTS Eighty-seven patients [median years of age 49 (IQR: 34-63); 72 males (82.8%)] were randomized [44 to standard care; 43 to standard care plus TPE]. Days on MV (p=0.007) and ICU length-of-stay (p=0.02) were lower in the TPE group versus controls. Thirty-five-day mortality was lower in the TPE group (20.9% vs. 34.1% in controls), but this did not reach statistical significance [Kaplan-Meir analysis: p=0.582). TPE was associated with increased lymphocytes and ADAMTS-13 activity; plus decreased serum lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, D-dimers, and interleukin-6. Multivariable regression analysis provided several predictors of 35-day mortality: PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00, p=0.02], ADAMTS-13 activity (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, p=0.01), and PE (HR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.43-8.92, p=0.007). Post-hoc analysis revealed a significant reduction in SOFA score for TPE patients (p<0.05) compared to controls. CONCLUSION In critically ill COVID-19 patients the addition of TPE to standard ICU therapy was associated with faster clinical recovery and no increased 35-day mortality.

Abstract

Assessment of efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) following life-threatening COVID-19. This was an open-label, randomised clinical trial of ICU patients with life-threatening COVID-19 (positive RT-qPCR plus ARDS, sepsis, organ failure, hyperinflammation). Study was terminated after 87/120 patients enrolled. Standard treatment plus TPE (n = 43) versus standard treatment (n = 44), and stratified by PaO2/FiO2 ratio (>150 vs. ≤150), were compared. Primary outcomes were 35-day mortality and TPE safety. Secondary outcomes were association between TPE and mortality, improvement in SOFA score, change in inflammatory biomarkers, days on mechanical ventilation (MV), and ICU length of stay (LOS). Eighty-seven patients [median age 49 (IQR 34-63) years; 82.8% male] were randomised (44 standard care; 43 standard care plus TPE). Days on MV (P = 0.007) and ICU LOS (P = 0.02) were lower in the TPE group. 35-Day mortality was non-significantly lower in the TPE group (20.9% vs. 34.1%; Kaplan-Meier, P = 0.582). TPE was associated with increased lymphocytes and ADAMTS-13 activity and decreased serum lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, d-dimers and interleukin-6. Multivariable regression analysis provided several predictors of 35-day mortality: PaO2/FiO2 ratio (HR, 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.00; P = 0.02]; ADAMTS-13 activity (HR, 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98; P = 0.01); pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.57, 95% CI 1.43-8.92; P = 0.007). Post-hoc analysis revealed a significant reduction in SOFA score for TPE patients (P < 0.05). In critically-ill COVID-19 patients, addition of TPE to standard ICU therapy was associated with faster clinical recovery and no increased 35-day mortality.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulopathy but the optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy remains uncertain and may depend on COVID-19 severity. OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 treated with standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin. METHODS We conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing standard prophylactic dose versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or had laboratory evidence of coagulopathy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin or intermediate weight-adjusted dose enoxaparin. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included arterial or venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 176 patients (99 males and 77 females) underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.45; P=0.31 by chi-square test). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 1.37; P=0.28). Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm. CONCLUSION In hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19, standard prophylactic dose and intermediate dose enoxaparin did not differ significantly in preventing death or thrombosis at 30 days.

Abstract

BACKGROUND SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with a prothrombotic state, predisposing patients for a progressive disease course. We investigated whether rivaroxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant factor Xa inhibitor would reduce COVID-19 progression. METHODS Adults (N=497) symptomatic with mild COVID-19 and at high-risk for COVID-19 progression based on age, body mass index, or comorbidity were randomized 1:1 to either daily oral rivaroxaban 10 mg (N=246) or placebo-equivalent (N=251) for 21 days and followed to Day 35. Primary endpoints were safety and progression to moderate or severe disease, per the Gates MRI scale. Absolute difference in progression risk was assessed using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. RESULTS The study was terminated after 497 of target 600 participants were enrolled due to a pre-specified interim analysis of the first 200 participants which crossed the futility boundary for the primary efficacy endpoint in the Intent to Treat population. Enrollees were 85% aged < 65 years old, 60% female, 27% Hispanic, Black or other minorities and 69% with ≥2 comorbidities. Rivaroxaban was well-tolerated. Disease progression rates were 46/222 (20.7%) in rivaroxaban vs. 44/222 (19.8%) in placebo groups, with a risk difference of -1.0, 95% CI, -6.4 to 8.4; P = 0.78. CONCLUSIONS Our study did not demonstrate an impact of rivaroxaban on disease progression in high-risk adults with mild COVID-19. There remains a critical public health gap in identifying scalable effective therapies for high-risk people in the outpatient setting to prevent COVID-19 progression.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Currently, there is no specific drug for the treatment of COVID-19. Therapeutic benefits of intravenous immunoglobin (IVIG) have been demonstrated in wide range of diseases. The present study is conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. METHODS An open-label, multicenter, comparative, randomized study was conducted on COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. 100 eligible patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio either to receive IVIG + standard of care (SOC) or SOC. RESULTS Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in IVIG group to that of SOC alone (7.7 Vs. 17.5 days). Duration for normalization of body temperature, oxygen saturation and mechanical ventilation were significantly shorter in IVIG compared to SOC. Percentages of patients on mechanical ventilation in two groups were not significantly different (24% Vs. 38%). Median time to RT-PCR negativity was significantly shorter with IVIG than SOC (7 Vs.18 days). There were only mild to moderate adverse events in both groups except for one patient (2%), who died in SOC. CONCLUSIONS IVIG was safe and efficacious as an adjuvant with other antiviral drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. The trial was registered under Clinical Trial Registry, India (CTRI/2020/06/026222).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Currently, there is no specific drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therapeutic benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have been demonstrated in wide range of diseases. The present study is conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. METHODS An open-label, multicenter, comparative, randomized study was conducted on COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. One hundred eligible patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio either to receive IVIG + standard of care (SOC) or SOC. RESULTS Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the IVIG group compared with that of SOC alone (7.7 vs 17.5 days). Duration for normalization of body temperature, oxygen saturation, and mechanical ventilation were significantly shorter in IVIG compared with SOC. Percentages of patients on mechanical ventilation in 2 groups were not significantly different (24% vs 38%). Median time to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction negativity was significantly shorter with IVIG than SOC (7 vs 18 days). There were only mild to moderate adverse events in both groups except for 1 patient (2%), who died in SOC. CONCLUSIONS Intravenous immunoglobulin was safe and efficacious as an adjuvant with other antiviral drugs in the treatment of COVID-19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79). INTERPRETATION In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. FUNDING UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m(2). At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT02735707, and NCT04359277.).