Abstract

BACKGROUND In some randomized controlled trials (RCTs), transradial (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) was associated with lower mortality in coronary artery disease patients undergoing invasive management. We analyzed the effects of TRA versus TFA across multicenter RCTs and whether these associations are modified by patient or operator characteristics. METHODS We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of multicenter RCTs comparing TRA versus TFA among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (PROSPERO; CRD42018109664). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the co-primary outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. The primary analysis was conducted by one-stage mixed-effects models based on the intention-to-treat cohort. The impact of access-site on mortality and major bleeding was further assessed by multivariable analysis. The relationship among access-site, bleeding, and mortality was investigated by natural effect model mediation analysis with multivariable adjustment. RESULTS A total of 21,600 patients (TRA=10,775 vs. TFA=10,825) from 7 RCTs were included. Median age was 63.9 years, 31.9% were female, 95% presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 75.2% underwent PCI. All-cause mortality (1.6% vs. 2.1%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95, p=0.012) and major bleeding (1.5% vs. 2.7%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45- 0.67, p<0.001) were lower with TRA. Subgroup analyses for mortality showed consistent results, except for baseline hemoglobin ((pinteraction)=0.033), indicating that the benefit of TRA was substantial in patients with significant anemia, while it was not significant in patients with milder or no baseline anemia. After adjustment, TRA remained associated with 24% and 51% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and major bleeding. A mediation analysis showed that the benefit of TRA on mortality was only partially driven by major bleeding prevention, and ancillary mechanisms are required to fully explain the causal association. CONCLUSIONS TRA is associated with lower all-cause mortality and major bleeding at 30 days, compared with TFA. The effect on mortality was driven by patients with anemia. The reduction in major bleeding only partially explains the mortality benefit.

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.

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.

Abstract

BACKGROUND SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women), a randomized controlled trial comparing radial and femoral access in women undergoing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was terminated early for lower than expected event rates. Whether this was because of patient selection or better access site practice among trial patients is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS SAFE-PCI was conducted within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry. Using the National Cardiovascular Research Infrastructure Identification, PCI date, and age, patients enrolled in SAFE-PCI were compared with trial-eligible female CathPCI registry patients 1 year before, during, and 1 year after SAFE-PCI enrollment. Patient and procedure characteristics, predicted bleeding and mortality, and post-PCI bleeding were compared between groups. Enrolled SAFE-PCI patients and registry patients from the 3 time periods were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to compare 30-day death and unplanned revascularization rates. At 54 SAFE-PCI sites, there were 496 SAFE-PCI trial patients with a PCI visit within the CathPCI registry. There were 24 958 registry patients from 1 year before and 1 year after SAFE-PCI enrollment and 15 904 trial-eligible registry patients during trial enrollment. Trial patients were younger, had lower predicted bleeding and mortality, and had lower rates of post-PCI bleeding within 72 hours compared with registry patients. Among 12 212 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day death and unplanned revascularization among the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS Lower predicted risk of bleeding and mortality among SAFE-PCI trial patients compared with registry patients suggests that lower-risk patients were selectively enrolled for the trial. These data demonstrate how registry-based randomized trials may offer methods for enrollment feedback to curb selection bias in recruitment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01406236.