Abstract

IMPORTANCE The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. RESULTS The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. RESULTS Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Abstract

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. 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. RESULTS The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mortality from COVID-19 is high among hospitalized patients and effective therapeutics are lacking. Hypercoagulability, thrombosis and hyperinflammation occur in COVID-19 and may contribute to severe complications. Therapeutic anticoagulation may improve clinical outcomes through anti-thrombotic, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral mechanisms. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin prevents mechanical ventilation and/or death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to usual care. METHODS An international, open-label, adaptive randomized controlled trial. Using a Bayesian framework, the trial will declare results as soon as pre-specified posterior probabilities for superiority, futility, or harm are reached. The trial uses response-adaptive randomization to maximize the probability that patients will receive the more beneficial treatment approach, as treatment effect information accumulates within the trial. By leveraging a common data safety monitoring board and pooling data with a second similar international Bayesian adaptive trial (REMAP-COVID anticoagulation domain), treatment efficacy and safety will be evaluated as efficiently as possible. The primary outcome is an ordinal endpoint with three possible outcomes based on the worst status of each patient through day 30: no requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSION Using an adaptive trial design, the Anti-Thrombotic Therapy To Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 trial will establish whether therapeutic anticoagulation can reduce mortality and/or avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Leveraging existing networks to recruit sites will increase enrollment and mitigate enrollment risk in sites with declining COVID-19 cases.

Abstract

PURPOSE Blood transfusions are frequently administered in cardiac surgery. Despite a large number of published studies comparing a "restrictive" strategy with a "liberal" strategy, no clear consensus has emerged to guide blood transfusion practice in cardiac surgery patients. The purpose of this study was to identify, critically appraise, and summarize the evidence on the overall effect of restrictive transfusion strategies compared with liberal transfusion strategies on mortality, other clinical outcomes, and transfusion-related outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. SOURCE We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) from inception to 1 December 2017 and queried clinical trial registries and conference proceedings for randomized-controlled trials of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS From 7,908 citations, we included ten trials (9,101 patients) and eight companion publications. Overall, we found no significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies (risk ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.54; I(2) = 33%; seven trials; 8,661 patients). The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy did not appear to adversely impact any of the secondary clinical outcomes. As expected, the proportion of patients who received red blood cells (RBCs) in the restrictive group was significantly lower than in the liberal group (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73; I(2) = 56%; 5 trials; 8,534 patients). Among transfused patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy was associated with fewer transfused RBC units per patient than a liberal transfusion strategy. CONCLUSIONS In adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive transfusion strategy reduces RBC transfusion without impacting mortality rate or the incidence of other perioperative complications. Nevertheless, further large trials in subgroups of patients, potentially of differing age, are needed to establish firm evidence to guide transfusion in cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); registered 20 April, 2018.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anemia is common in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury, and often requires red blood cell transfusion. Studies suggest that prolonged storage causes lesions of the red blood cells, including a decreased ability to carry oxygen. Considering the susceptibility of the brain to hypoxemia, victims of traumatic brain injury may thus be more vulnerable to exposure to older red blood cells. METHODS Our study aimed to ascertain whether the administration of fresh red blood cells (seven days or less) results in a better neurologic outcome compared with standard red blood cells in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury requiring transfusion. The Age of Blood Evaluation in traumatic brain injury (ABLE-tbi) study was a nested study within the ABLE study (ISRCTN44878718). Our primary outcome was the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSe) at six months. RESULTS In the ABLE study, 217 subjects suffered a traumatic brain injury: 110 in the fresh group, and 107 in the standard group. In the fresh group, 68 (73.1%) of the patients had an unfavourable neurologic outcome (GOSe <= 4) compared with 60 (64.5%) in the standard group (P = 0.21). Using a sliding dichotomy approach, we observed no overall effect of fresh red blood cells on neurologic outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 2.50; P = 0.35) but observed differences across prognostic bands with a decreased odds of unfavourable outcome in patients with the best prognosis at baseline (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.96; P = 0.04) but an increased odds in those with intermediate and worst baseline prognosis (OR, 5.88; 95% CI,1.66 to 20.81; P = 0.006; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.53 to 5.30; P = 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSION Overall, transfusion of fresh red blood cells was not associated with a better neurologic outcome at six months in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude a differential effect according to the patient baseline prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION ABLE study (ISRCTN44878718); registered 22 August, 2008.

Abstract

Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces transfusion requirements in cardiac surgery and total hip and knee arthroplasty, where it has become standard of care. Our objective is to determine the efficacy and safety of TXA in other surgeries associated with a high risk for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We identified randomized controlled trials in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CAB abstracts from inception to June 2019. We included trials evaluating intraoperative IV TXA in adult patients undergoing a non-cardiac and non-hip and knee arthroplasty surgeries at high-risk for RBC transfusion, defined as a baseline transfusion rate ≥5% in comparator arm. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We used GRADE methodology to assess certainty of evidence. From 8565 citations identified, we included 69 unique trials, enrolling 6157 patients. TXA reduces both the proportion of patients transfused RBCs (relative risk (RR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.72; low certainty evidence) and the volume of RBC transfused (MD -0.51 RBC units; 95%CI -0.13 to -0.9 units; low certainty evidence) when compared to placebo or usual care. TXA was not associated with differences in deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, need for re-operation due to hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, stroke or seizure. In patients undergoing a broad range of non-cardiac and non-hip and knee arthroplasty surgeries at high risk for RBC transfusion, perioperative TXA reduced exposure to RBC transfusion. No differences in thrombotic outcomes were identified; however, summary effect estimates were limited by lack of systemic screening and short duration of follow-up.

Abstract

PURPOSE Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry are point-of-care (POC) viscoelastic tests used to help guide blood product administration. It is unclear whether these tests improve clinical or transfusion-related outcomes. The objective of this study was to appraise data from randomized trials evaluating the benefit of POC testing in cardiac surgery patients. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients transfused with blood products and all-cause mortality. SOURCE Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library-Wiley), Web of Science, Biosis, Scopus, and CINAHL databases, as well as clinical trial registries and conference proceedings were queried from inception to February 2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS We identified 1,917 records, 11 of which were included in our analysis (8,294 patients). Point-of-care testing was not associated with a difference in the proportion of patients transfused with any blood product (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.02; I(2) = 51%; four trials, 7,623 patients), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.13; I(2) = 5%; six trials, 7,931 patients). Nevertheless, POC testing was weakly associated with a decrease in the proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (RBC) (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.96; I(2) = 0%; seven trials, 8,029 patients), and heterogeneous reductions in frozen plasma (FP) (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.99; I(2) = 87%; six trials, 7,989 patients) and platelets (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90; I(2) = 65%; seven trials, 8,029 patients). Meta-analysis of the number of units of RBCs and FP was not possible due to heterogeneity in reporting, however POC testing significantly reduced the units of platelets transfused (standard mean difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.00; four trials, 7,643 patients). CONCLUSION Our review indicates that in cardiac surgery patients, POC viscoelastic hemostatic testing is not associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients receiving any blood product or all-cause mortality. However, viscoelastic testing is weakly associated with a reduction in proportion of patients transfused with specific blood products. Presently, the benefits associated with viscoelastic testing in cardiac surgery patients are insufficiently robust to recommend routine implementation of this technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD4201706577). Registered 11 May 2017.