-
1.
Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial
Eikelboom JW, Jolly SS, Belley-Cote EP, Whitlock RP, Rangarajan S, Xu L, Heenan L, Bangdiwala SI, Tarhuni WM, Hassany M, et al
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine. 2022
Abstract
BACKGROUND The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19. METHODS The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions. INTERPRETATION The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19. FUNDING Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
-
2.
Colchicine and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial
Eikelboom JW, Jolly SS, Belley-Cote EP, Whitlock RP, Rangarajan S, Xu L, Heenan L, Bangdiwala SI, Luz Diaz M, Diaz R, et al
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine. 2022
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS The ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS Between Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug. INTERPRETATION Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death. FUNDING Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
-
3.
Prolonged Blood Storage and Risk of Posttransfusion Acute Kidney Injury
Adegboye J, Sapatnekar S, Mascha EJ, Shah K, Lioudis M, Essber H, Cohen B, Rivas E, Heddle NM, Eikelboom JW, et al
Anesthesiology. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Erythrocyte transfusions are independently associated with acute kidney injury. Kidney injury may be consequent to the progressive hematologic changes that develop during storage. This study therefore tested the hypothesis that prolonged erythrocyte storage increases posttransfusion acute kidney injury. METHODS The Informing Fresh versus Old Red Cell Management (INFORM) trial randomized 31,497 patients to receive either the freshest or oldest available matching erythrocyte units and showed comparable mortality with both. This a priori substudy compared the incidence of posttransfusion acute kidney injury in the randomized groups. Acute kidney injury was defined by the creatinine component of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria. RESULTS The 14,461 patients included in this substudy received 40,077 erythrocyte units. For patients who received more than one unit, the mean age of the blood units was used as the exposure. The median of the mean age of blood units transfused per patient was 11 days [interquartile range, 8, 15] in the freshest available blood group and 23 days [interquartile range, 17, 30] in the oldest available blood group. In the primary analysis, posttransfusion acute kidney injury was observed in 688 of 4,777 (14.4%) patients given the freshest available blood and 1,487 of 9,684 (15.4%) patients given the oldest available blood, with an estimated relative risk (95% CI) of 0.94 (0.86 to 1.02; P = 0.132). The secondary analysis treated blood age as a continuous variable (defined as duration of storage in days), with an estimated relative risk (95% CI) of 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04; P = 0.978) for a 10-day increase in the mean age of erythrocyte units. CONCLUSIONS In a population of patients without severely impaired baseline renal function receiving fewer than 10 erythrocyte units, duration of blood storage had no effect on the incidence of posttransfusion acute kidney injury.
PICO Summary
Population
Hospitalized patients enrolled across four countries in the Informing Fresh versus Old Red Cell Management (INFORM) trial (n= 14,461).
Intervention
Transfusion with freshest available erythrocyte units (n= 4,777).
Comparison
Transfusion with oldest available erythrocyte units (n= 9,684).
Outcome
The median of the mean age of blood units transfused per patient was 11 days in the freshest available blood group and 23 days in the oldest available blood group. In the primary analysis, post-transfusion acute kidney injury was observed in 688 of 4,777 (14.4%) patients given the freshest available blood and 1,487 of 9,684 (15.4%) patients given the oldest available blood, with an estimated relative risk of 0.94.
-
4.
Tranexamic acid and rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular events after noncardiac surgery: a pilot of the POISE-3 randomized controlled trial
Marcucci M, Duceppe E, Le Manach Y, Kearon C, Eikelboom JW, Pohl K, Vincent J, Darvish-Kazem S, Srinathan SK, Neary JDD, et al
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020;6:104
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical bleeding is associated with postoperative cardiovascular complications. The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in noncardiac surgery are still uncertain. Statins may prevent perioperative cardiovascular complications. We conducted a pilot to assess the feasibility of a perioperative trial of TXA and rosuvastatin. METHODS Using a factorial design, we randomized patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing noncardiac surgery to intravenous TXA (1 g at the start and end of surgery) or placebo, and oral rosuvastatin (40 mg before and 20 mg daily for 30 days after surgery) or placebo. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, follow-up, and compliance to interventions. Clinical outcomes were secondarily explored. RESULTS After 3 months, we changed the design to a partial factorial due to the difficult recruitment of statin-naive patients. Over 6 months, 100 patients were randomized in the TXA trial (49 TXA, 51 placebo), 34 in the rosuvastatin trial (18 rosuvastatin, 16 placebo). Ninety-two percent (95% CI 80-98) of TXA and 86% (95% CI 74-94) of TXA-placebo patients received the 2 study doses. Thirty-three percent (95% CI 13-59) of rosuvastatin patients and 37% (95% CI 15-65) of rosuvastatin-placebo patients discontinued the study drug. A major cardiovascular complication occurred at 30 days in 1 TXA and 6 TXA-placebo patients, and 1 rosuvastatin and no rosuvastatin-placebo patients. CONCLUSIONS Our pilot study supports the feasibility of a perioperative TXA trial in noncardiac surgery. Feasibility of a perioperative rosuvastatin trial is uncertain because of a high prevalence of statin use in the target population and concerns about compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.govNCT02546648.
-
5.
Effect of short-term vs. long-term blood storage on mortality after transfusion
Heddle NM, Cook RJ, Arnold DM, Liu Y, Barty R, Crowther MA, Devereaux PJ, Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Webert KE, et al
The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;375((20):):1937-1945
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Background Randomized, controlled trials have suggested that the transfusion of blood after prolonged storage does not increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients, although most of these trials were restricted to high-risk populations and were not powered to detect small but clinically important differences in mortality. We sought to find out whether the duration of blood storage would have an effect on mortality after transfusion in a general population of hospitalized patients. Methods In this pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial conducted at six hospitals in four countries, we randomly assigned patients who required a red-cell transfusion to receive blood that had been stored for the shortest duration (short-term storage group) or the longest duration (long-term storage group) in a 1:2 ratio. Only patients with type A or O blood were included in the primary analysis, since pilot data suggested that our goal of achieving a difference in the mean duration of blood storage of at least 10 days would not be possible with other blood types. Written informed consent was waived because all the patients received treatment consistent with the current standard of care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, which was estimated by means of a logistic-regression model after adjustment for study center and patient blood type. Results From April 2012 through October 2015, a total of 31,497 patients underwent randomization. Of these patients, 6761 who did not meet all the enrollment criteria were excluded after randomization. The primary analysis included 20,858 patients with type A or O blood. Of these patients, 6936 were assigned to the short-term storage group and 13,922 to the long-term storage group. The mean storage duration was 13.0 days in the short-term storage group and 23.6 days in the long-term storage group. There were 634 deaths (9.1%) in the short-term storage group and 1213 (8.7%) in the long-term storage group (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.16; P=0.34). When the analysis was expanded to include the 24,736 patients with any blood type, the results were similar, with rates of death of 9.1% and 8.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.14; P=0.38). Additional results were consistent in three prespecified high-risk subgroups (patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, those admitted to intensive care, and those with cancer). Conclusions Among patients in a general hospital population, there was no significant difference in the rate of death among those who underwent transfusion with the freshest available blood and those who underwent transfusion according to the standard practice of transfusing the oldest available blood. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; INFORM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN08118744 .).
PICO Summary
Population
Adults with type A or type O blood requiring blood transfusion from six centres in Australia, Canada, Israel and USA (n= 20,858).
Intervention
Blood stored for the shortest duration (short-term storage group, n= 6,936).
Comparison
Blood stored for the longest duration (long-term storage group, n= 13,922).
Outcome
The mean storage duration was 13.0 days in the short-term storage group and 23.6 days in the long-term storage group. There were 634 deaths (9.1%) in the short-term storage group and 1213 (8.7%) in the long-term storage group (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.16). When the analysis was expanded to include the 24,736 patients with any blood type, the results were similar, with rates of death of 9.1% and 8.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.14). Additional results were consistent in three prespecified high-risk subgroups (patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, those admitted to intensive care, and those with cancer).
-
6.
Transfusion of fresher vs older red blood cells in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Alexander PE, Barty R, Fei Y, Vandvik PO, Pai M, Siemieniuk RA, Heddle NM, Blumberg N, McLeod SL, Liu J, et al
Blood. 2016;127((4)):400-10.
Abstract
The impact of transfusing fresher vs older red blood cells (RBCs) on patient-important outcomes remains controversial. Two recently published large trials have provided new evidence. We summarized results of randomized trials evaluating the impact of the age of transfused RBCs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients who were transfused fresher vs older RBCs and reported outcomes of death, adverse events, and infection. Independently and in duplicate, reviewers determined eligibility, risk of bias, and abstracted data. We conducted random effects meta-analyses and rated certainty (quality or confidence) of evidence using the GRADE approach. Of 12 trials that enrolled 5229 participants, 6 compared fresher RBCs with older RBCs and 6 compared fresher RBCs with current standard practice. There was little or no impact of fresher vs older RBCs on mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.14; P = .45; I(2) = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) or on adverse events (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14; P = .74; I(2) = 0%, low certainty evidence). Fresher RBCs appeared to increase the risk of nosocomial infection (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18; P = .04; I(2) = 0%, risk difference 4.3%, low certainty evidence). Current evidence provides moderate certainty that use of fresher RBCs does not influence mortality, and low certainty that it does not influence adverse events but could possibly increase infection rates. The existing evidence provides no support for changing practices toward fresher RBC transfusion.