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

D-dimer-An International Assessment of the Quality of Laboratory Testing: Implications for D-dimer Use in the Real World

D-dimer assessment has several established roles in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and disseminated intravascular coagulation diagnosis, and recently the risk stratification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). D-dimer assays are neither standardized nor harmonized, use varying methodologies, and use different reporting units, all resulting in a lack of interchangeability and generalizability of assays. Using large multiyear datasets from an international laboratory quality assurance program, we assessed (1) common D-dimer assays in use worldwide, (2) differences in analytical performance between different methods, and (3) interlaboratory variability between positive samples. External proficiency testing results from laboratories participating in the External Quality Control for Assays and Tests (ECAT) Foundation were analyzed from 2017 to 2023. Annually, between 578 and 690 laboratories participated in the D-dimer sample surveys with response rates ranging from 88 to 97%. The three most common assays in use in 2023 were the Siemens Innovance D-dimer (42%), the IL HemosIL D-dimer HS 500 (20%), and the Diagnostica Stago (Stago) Liatest D-dimer Plus (10%)-all these are automated, quantitative, latex immunoassays expressed in fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU). The highest interlaboratory variability was observed around the typical VTE exclusion threshold of 0.5 mg/L FEU. Lower interlaboratory variability was observed at values above 0.8 mg/L FEU. Our study provides recent, international performance data on currently used D-dimer assays and describes the significant variability between assays and across D-dimer concentrations. We demonstrate that assays are not interchangeable and that using them interchangeably has the potential to result in clinically important errors. There is an urgent need to educate users about these issues and to work towards harmonizing D-dimer units and reporting.

Composite endpoints in COVID-19 randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of ordinal, binary, and numerical composite endpoints among coronavirus disease 2019 trials and the potential bias attributable to their use.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and bias associated with using composite endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized clinical trials. We compared the effect measure (relative risk) of composite outcomes and that of its most critical component (i.e. death) by estimating the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index [ln(relative risk for the composite outcome)/ln(relative risk for death)].

RESULTS

Composite endpoints accounted for 152 out of 417 primary endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized trials, being more frequent among studies published in high-impact journals. Ordinal endpoints were the most common (54% of all composites), followed by binary or time-to-event (34%), numerical (11%), and hierarchical (1%). Composites predominated among trials enrolling patients with severe disease when compared to trials with a mild or moderate case mix (odds ratio = 1.72). Adaptations of the seven-point World Health Organization scale occurred in 40% of the ordinal primary endpoints, which frequently underwent dichotomization for the statistical analyses. Mortality accounted for a median of 24% (interquartile range: 6%-48%) of all events when included in the composite. The median point estimate of the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index was 0.3 (interquartile range: -0.1 to 0.7), being significantly lower than 1 in 5 of 24 comparisons.

DISCUSSION

Composite endpoints were used in a significant proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 trials, especially those involving severely ill patients. This is likely due to the higher anticipated rates of competing events, such as death, in such studies. Ordinal composites were common but often not fully appreciated, reducing the potential gains in information and statistical efficiency. For studies with binary composites, death was the most frequent component, and, unexpectedly, composite outcome estimates were often closer to the null when compared to those for mortality death. Numerical composites were less common, and only two trials used hierarchical endpoints. These newer approaches may offer advantages over traditional binary and ordinal composites; however, their potential benefits warrant further scrutiny.

CONCLUSION

Composite endpoints accounted for more than a third of coronavirus disease 2019 trials' primary endpoints; their use was more common among studies that included patients with severe disease and their point effect estimates tended to underestimate those for mortality.

On approximate equality of Z-values of the statistical tests for win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit)

Dong et al. (2023) showed that the win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement each another to demonstrate the strength of treatment effects in randomized trials with prioritized multiple outcomes. This result was built on the connections among the point and variance estimates of the three statistics, and the approximate equality of Z-values in their statistical tests. However, the impact of this approximation was not clear. This Discussion refines this approach and shows that the approximate equality of Z-values for the win statistics holds more generally. Thus, the three win statistics consistently yield closely similar p-values. In addition, our simulations show an example that the naive approach without adjustment for censoring bias may produce a completely opposite conclusion from the true results, whereas the IPCW (inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting) approach can effectively adjust the win statistics to the corresponding true values (i.e. IPCW-adjusted win statistics are unbiased estimators of treatment effect).

What are the clinical and research lessons learned from immunomodulators and other therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The development and use of immunomodulators and other therapies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provided several lessons with respect to these therapies, and to how medical researchers and clinicians should approach the next pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

New or repurposed therapies, particularly immunomodulator treatments, for the treatment of an infectious disease will always be associated with inherent patient risk and this was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concomitant development and use of effective antimicrobial therapies along with close monitoring for secondary infections is paramount for patient safety and treatment success. The development of immunomodulators and other therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards for medical research for all potential treatment with large double-blind placebo-controlled trials and peer review being the best mode of disseminating medical results rather than social media outlets.

SUMMARY

The next new and emerging pandemic will undoubtedly share many of the same challenges posed by COVID-19. It is important that researchers and clinicians learn from this experience, adhere to tried and true clinical care, all the while conducting high quality research aimed at developing definitive treatments.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

COVID-19 Coagulopathy

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is the respiratory viral infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite being a primary respiratory illness, it is commonly complicated by systemic involvement of the vasculature leading to arterial and venous thrombosis. In this review, we will focus on the association between COVID-19 and thrombosis. We will highlight the pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 vasculopathy will be discussed with a focus on venous and arterial thromboembolic events. COVID-19 vasculopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) are distinguished within, as well as areas of controversy, such as "long COVID". Finally, the current professional guidelines on prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection will be discussed.

Comparative analysis of COVID-19-associated venous thromboembolism outcomes: evolution from 2020 to 2021-2022

Patients with COVID-19 are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). With the advent of vaccinations and novel treatments from 2020 through 2022, the landscape of COVID-19 has evolved. Notably, the effects of such interventions on the outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE have not been thoroughly examined. Data from the RIETE registry were analyzed to evaluate 90-day VTE-related outcomes (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and VTE recurrences) in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE. We compared the periods before and after the widespread introduction of COVID-19 vaccines: March to December 2020 (pre-vaccine period) and March 2021 to December 2022 (post-vaccine period). Statistical analysis included mixed-effects parametric survival-time models. Among 1,620 patients with COVID-19-associated VTE, most (74.1%) were identified during 2020 period. The analysis revealed a more than two-fold increase in the risk of death within 90 days (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.18-4.38) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 2.91; 95%CI: 1.08-7.84) for patients from the 2020 period compared to those from the 2021-2022 period. Inpatient subgroup analysis confirmed the observed mortality differences. The frequency of recurrent VTE was low (1.1 vs. 0.7%, respectively), and did not show significant variation between the two periods. Our research provides a comparative perspective on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE before and after the introduction of vaccines. Our findings reveal a significant decrease in the incidence of 90-day mortality and major bleeding in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE in the 2021-2022 period.

The effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the incidence of post-operative venous sinus thrombosis following skull base procedures

PURPOSE

Sinus thrombosis is a common post-operative finding after posterior fossa surgery performed in the vicinity of the dural venous sinuses. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been shown to confer an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events owing to eliciting a hyper-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic state. In this study, we examine the incidence of post-operative venous sinus thrombosis in patients undergoing peri-sigmoid posterior fossa surgery in the pre- and post-COVID era and investigate whether COVID infection confers an increased risk of sinus thrombosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single institution case series of patients underwent peri-sigmoid surgery (retrosigmoid, translabyrinthine, or far lateral) approach. Relevant clinical variables were investigated that may confer an increased risk of sinus thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients (178 in the pre-COVID era, and 133 operated on after the pandemic began in March 2020) are included in the study. The composite incidence of sinus thrombosis seen on post-operative imaging was 7.8%. The incidence of sinus thrombosis in the pre-COVID cohort was N = 12 patients (6.7%) versus N = 12 (9%) in the post-COVID cohort (p = 0.46). A history of COVID infection was not shown to confer an increased risk of post-operative sinus thrombosis (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.08-4.79, p = 0.64). Only a small number of patients (N = 7, 2.3%) required either medical or surgical intervention for post-operative sinus thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of post-operative sinus thrombosis is similar in the pre- and post-COVID era. The findings of this study suggest that COVID infection is not associated with a higher risk of venous sinus thrombosis.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin for preventing coagulopathy following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have shown a significant occurrence of thromboembolism and a heightened risk of death. It remains unclear whether factor Xa inhibitors are superior to enoxaparin in this context. Hence, there is a need for a direct comparison to assess the preventive effects and safety of factor Xa inhibitors versus enoxaparin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness or safety of factor Xa inhibitors and enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Embolic incidence, incidence of bleeding, and all-cause mortality were among the outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 percent CIs.

Results

The analysis included six RCTs and two retrospective studies containing 4048 patients. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction among patients on factor Xa inhibitors compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the embolic incidence [risk ratio (RR) 0.64 (95%, CI 0.42, 0.98); P=0.04, I2=12%]. Upon subgroup analysis by type of study design, no significant reductions were noted in patients on factor Xa inhibitors in RCTs (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.33-1.17; P=0.14) or observational studies (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.23-1.26; P=0.15) when compared with enoxaparin Factor Xa inhibitors were not significantly associated with incidence of bleeding [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.36, 1.61); P=0.47, I2=0%] or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.36; P=0.43). Consistent results were obtained upon subgroup analysis by the type of study design.

Conclusion

Factor Xa inhibitors are more effective than enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 who are not acutely ill and are hospitalized. Additional rigorous RCTs comparing factor Xa inhibitors with enoxaparin are warranted.

Analysis of Clinical Criteria for Discharge Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model

BACKGROUND

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 can clinically deteriorate after a period of initial stability, making optimal timing of discharge a clinical and operational challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risks for post-discharge readmission and death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, 2020-2021, with 30-day follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults admitted for care of COVID-19 respiratory disease between March 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, to one of 180 US hospitals affiliated with the HCA Healthcare system.

MAIN MEASURES

Readmission to or death at an HCA hospital within 30 days of discharge was assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated using an internal validation set (33% of the HCA cohort), and external validation was performed using similar data from six academic centers associated with a hospital medicine research network (HOMERuN).

KEY RESULTS

The final HCA cohort included 62,195 patients (mean age 61.9 years, 51.9% male), of whom 4704 (7.6%) were readmitted or died within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors for death or readmission included fever within 72 h of discharge; tachypnea, tachycardia, or lack of improvement in oxygen requirement in the last 24 h; lymphopenia or thrombocytopenia at the time of discharge; being ≤ 7 days since first positive test for SARS-CoV-2; HOSPITAL readmission risk score ≥ 5; and several comorbidities. Inpatient treatment with remdesivir or anticoagulation were associated with lower odds. The model's AUC for the internal validation set was 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) for the external validation set.

CONCLUSIONS

This large retrospective study identified several factors associated with post-discharge readmission or death in models which performed with good discrimination. Patients 7 or fewer days since test positivity and who demonstrate potentially reversible risk factors may benefit from delaying discharge until those risk factors resolve.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This report is the second update of our systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard thromboprophylaxis, intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation or no anticoagulation in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. We searched eligible studies up to 5 October 2023. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

For this update we included fourteen new RCTs and a total of 27 RCTs with 16,789 patients. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high depending on outcome and comparison. Standard thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect for COVID-19 outpatients compared to no anticoagulation. In inpatients with moderate or severe COVID-19, intermediate dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic events or death, but may increase major bleeding compared to standard thromboprophylaxis. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation decreases thrombotic events or deaths in inpatients with moderate COVID-19, but probably has little or no effect in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to standard thromboprophylaxis with low or intermediate dose anticoagulation. With therapeutic dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding probably increases regardless of COVID-19 severity. We are uncertain on the effect of thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation in the post-discharge setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized, moderately-ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Four years into the pandemic, managing COVID-19 patients with acute coagulopathy: what have we learned?

Coagulopathy alongside micro- and macrovascular thrombotic events were frequent characteristics of patients presenting with acute COVID-19 during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, over the past 4 years, the incidence and manifestations of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy have changed due to immunity from natural infection and vaccination and the appearance of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Diagnostic criteria and management strategies based on early experience and studies for COVID-19-associated coagulopathy thus require reevaluation. As many other infectious disease states are also associated with hemostatic dysfunction, the coagulopathy associated with COVID-19 may be compounded, especially throughout the winter months, in patients with diverse etiologies of COVID-19 and other infections. This commentary examines what we have learned about COVID-19-associated coagulopathy throughout the pandemic and how we might best prepare to mitigate the hemostatic consequences of emerging infection agents.

Appropriate thromboprophylaxis strategy for COVID-19 patients on dosage, antiplatelet therapy, outpatient, and postdischarge prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There was controversy surrounding the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This included debates on the dosage of anticoagulants for thromboembolism prophylaxis, the requirement for additional antiplatelet therapy, and the necessity of prophylaxis for outpatients and postdischarge. To explore this, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 26 July 2023 for studies comparing the effect of different dose of anticoagulation, additional antiplatelet, and postdischarge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of thromboembolism events, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Our study included a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, involving 17 911 patients. Our results revealed that, compared to prophylactic dose, therapeutic dose showed lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.96) but had similar major bleeding risk for critically ill patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, intermediate dose and prophylactic dose demonstrated similar thromboembolism risk and major bleeding risk. For noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic dose of anticoagulants was associated with lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34-0.72) but, at the same time, increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.01; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33). However, intermediate dose showed lower thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21-0.69) while maintaining a similar major bleeding risk. In critically ill patients, additional antiplatelet therapy showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For outpatients, additional prophylactic anticoagulation showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For postdischarge patients, postdischarge prophylaxis reduced thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31-0.76) but increased major bleeding risk (RR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.13-6.14).

CONCLUSION

For noncritically ill patients, therapeutic dose prophylactic anticoagulation significantly reduced venous thromboembolism but increases major bleeding risk. Intermediate dose effectively lowered venous thromboembolism without raising major bleeding risk. The optimal dose and need for additional antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients, as well as the necessity of prophylactic anticoagulation in outpatient and postdischarge patients, required further investigation and confirmation through rigorous evidence studies.

COVID-19 Infection and ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Lessons in Disease Management During a Pandemic

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, causing the COVID-19 pandemic, has profoundly impacted global health, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. This paper presents a case study highlighting the heightened risk of severe cardiovascular complications following COVID-19 infection. A 61-year-old male with hyperlipidemia was discharged after COVID-19 pneumonia treatment and experienced a severe ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) within a day of discharge. A retrospective chart review, supplemented by a literature review, revealed a pattern of increased severity in STEMI cases associated with COVID-19, particularly in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities. SARS-CoV-2 induces a prothrombotic state, which causes endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation, potentially precipitating thrombotic events. Managing concurrent COVID-19 and STEMI poses unique challenges, emphasizing the critical role of timely intervention, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in improving patient outcomes. Despite advancements, uncertainty persists regarding optimal thromboembolism prophylaxis post COVID-19, necessitating ongoing research and meticulous clinical management. While COVID-19 infection rates have declined since the pandemic, this case report hopes to emphasize the need for continued awareness in recognizing the potential thrombotic risks of COVID-19 infection and underscore the need for further investigation into cardiovascular risk as new viral strains develop in the future.

Major Bleeding Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study

Thromboprophylaxis/anticoagulation treatment is often required in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of major bleeding events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This was a retrospective observational study including all COVID-19 hospitalized patients ≥18 years of age at one reference center in northern Italy. The crude prevalence (between February 2020-2022) of major bleeding events was estimated as the number of major bleeding episodes divided by patients at risk. Uni- and multivariable Cox models were built to assess factors potentially associated with major bleeding events. Twenty-nine (0.98%) out of 2,945 COVID-19 patients experienced a major bleeding event [prevalence of 0.55% (95%CI 0.37-0.79)], of which five were fatal. Patients who experienced a major bleeding event were older [78 years (72-84 IQR) vs. 67 years (55-78 IQR), p-value < 0.001] and more frequently exposed to anti-aggregating therapy (44.8% vs. 20.0%, p-value 0.002) when compared to those who did not. In the multivariable Cox model, age [per 1 year more AHR 1.05 (CI95% 1.02-1.09)] was independently associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events. A strict monitoring of older hospitalized COVID-19 patients is warranted due to the risk of major bleeding events.

A systematic review of thromboembolic complications and outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

Thromboembolic (TE) complications [myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE)] are common causes of mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review was undertaken to explore the incidence of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients from different studies. A literature search was performed using ScienceDirect and PubMed databases using the MeSH term search strategy of "COVID-19", "thromboembolic complication", "venous thromboembolism", "arterial thromboembolism", "deep vein thrombosis", "pulmonary embolism", "myocardial infarction", "stroke", and "mortality". There were 33 studies included in this review. Studies have revealed that COVID-19 patients tend to develop venous thromboembolism (PE:1.0-40.0% and DVT:0.4-84%) compared to arterial thromboembolism (stroke:0.5-15.2% and MI:0.8-8.7%). Lastly, the all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients ranged from 4.8 to 63%, whereas the incidence of mortality associated with TE complications was between 5% and 48%. A wide range of incidences of TE complications and mortality associated with TE complications can be seen among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Therefore, every patient should be assessed for the risk of thromboembolic complications and provided with an appropriate thromboprophylaxis management plan tailored to their individual needs.

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication.

RESULTS

We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.

A hierarchical kidney outcome using win statistics in patients with heart failure from the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials

Win statistics offer a new approach to the analysis of outcomes in clinical trials, allowing the combination of time-to-event and longitudinal measurements and taking into account the clinical importance of the components of composite outcomes, as well as their relative timing. We examined this approach in a post hoc analysis of two trials that compared dapagliflozin to placebo in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (DAPA-HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (DELIVER). The effect of dapagliflozin on a hierarchical composite kidney outcome was assessed, including the following: (1) all-cause mortality; (2) end-stage kidney disease; (3) a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥57%; (4) a decline in eGFR of ≥50%; (5) a decline in eGFR of ≥40%; and (6) participant-level eGFR slope. For this outcome, the win ratio was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.15) in the combined dataset, 1.08 (95% CI = 1.01-1.16) in the DAPA-HF trial and 1.12 (95% CI = 1.05-1.18) in the DELIVER trial; that is, dapagliflozin was superior to placebo in both trials. The benefits of treatment were consistent in participants with and without baseline kidney disease, and with and without type 2 diabetes. In heart failure trials, win statistics may provide the statistical power to evaluate the effect of treatments on kidney as well as cardiovascular outcomes.

Chronic Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability. It remains uncertain whether ongoing anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who later contract COVID-19 improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare chronic oral anticoagulation with no previous anticoagulation in patients with AF who contracted a COVID-19 infection concerning the outcomes of all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies from inception to December 2022. We included studies comparing COVID-19 outcomes in patients with versus without prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising 1,177,858 patients with COVID-19 and AF were identified, of whom 893,772 (75.9%) were on prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. In patients with COVID-19, being on chronic anticoagulation for AF significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; p = 0.048; I2 = 89%) and COVID-19-related mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) when compared with no prior anticoagulation. In contrast, there was no difference between groups regarding hospitalization (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41; p = 0.587; I2 = 95%) or ICU admission (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.216; I2 = 69%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, chronic anticoagulation for patients with AF who contracted COVID-19 was associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related mortality as compared with no previous anticoagulation.

Prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to investigate the impact of prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic-dose DOACs with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 until September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events, while major bleeding events were the primary safety outcome. We expressed continuous outcome data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and dichotomous outcome data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

Results

We included six RCTs involving 4307 patients. Prophylactic-dose DOAC therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with significantly decreased risks of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events (1.43% vs 2.67% (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.82, P = 0.004, I2 = 3%)). Major bleeding events were infrequent, and we detected no significant differences between patients assigned to prophylactic-dose DOACs vs placebo or no treatment (0.19% vs 0.05% (RR = 2.50; 95% CI = 0.49-12.87, P = 0.27, I2 = 0%)). The use of prophylactic-dose DOACs was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism, with no difference in all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, hospitalisations, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding between two groups. Sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method for the primary efficacy and safety outcome did not change the effect estimate substantially.

Conclusions

We found that prophylaxis-dose DOACs could significantly improve clinical outcomes and reduce venous thrombotic events without increasing the risk of major bleeding events compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023466889.

Effect of anticoagulation on the incidence of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an updated meta-analysis

Objective

Anticoagulation is crucial for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the optimal anticoagulation regimen needs further exploration. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of diverse anticoagulation dosage dosages for COVID-19.

Methods

An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of thromboprophylaxis (standard, intermediate, and therapeutic dose) on the incidence of VTE, mortality and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Literature was searched via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for effect estimates.

Results

Nineteen studies involving 25,289 participants without VTE history were included. The mean age of patients was 59.3 years old. About 50.96% were admitted to the intensive care unit. In the pooled analysis, both therapeutic-dose and intermediate-dose anticoagulation did not have a significant advantage in reducing VTE risk over standard dosage (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.58-2.02, and OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, respectively). Similarly, all-cause mortality was not further decreased in either therapeutic-dose group (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.75-1.67) or intermediate-dose group (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.83-2.17). While the major bleeding risk was significantly elevated in the therapeutic-dose group (OR = 2.59, 95%CI: 1.87-3.57) as compared with the standard-dose regimen. Compared with intermediate dosage, therapeutic anticoagulation did not reduce consequent VTE risk (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.52-1.38) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.60-1.17), but significantly increased major bleeding rate (OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.58-3.70). In subgroup analysis of patients older than 65 years, therapeutic anticoagulation significantly lowered the incidence of VTE in comparation comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis, however, at the cost of elevated risk of major bleeding.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that for most hospitalized patients with COVID-19, standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation might be the optimal choice. For elderly patients at low risk of bleeding, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation could further reduce VTE risk and should be considered especially when there were other strong risk factors of VTE during hospital stay.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier, CRD42023388429.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban for anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library electronic databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify all relevant randomized controlled trial studies from December 2019 to July 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 3323 patients, were considered for evaluation. Overall, short-term all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates were not significantly different between the rivaroxaban and control groups. Thrombotic events were significantly reduced in the rivaroxaban prophylaxis group compared to the placebo control group. However, the reduction in thrombotic events was not significantly different between rivaroxaban therapy and heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Rivaroxaban prophylaxis and the therapeutic dose may be associated with a higher rate of overall bleeding rate, but major bleeding rates did not differ substantially.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban may reduce thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients, but it does not appear to have an advantage over heparin or LMWH, and it may increase the risk of bleeding.INPLASY Reg. No.: INPLASY 202370097.

Use of the Win Ratio Analysis in Critical Care Trials

Composite outcomes are commonly used in critical care trials to estimate the treatment effect of an intervention. A significant limitation of classical analytic approaches is that they assign equal statistical importance to each component in a composite, even if these do not have the same clinical importance (i.e., in a composite of death and organ failure, death is clearly more important). The win ratio (WR) method has been proposed as an alternative for trial outcomes evaluation, as it effectively assesses events based on their clinical relevance (i.e., hierarchical order) by comparing each patient in the intervention group with their counterparts in the control group. This statistical approach is increasingly used in cardiovascular outcome trials. However, WR may be useful to unveil treatment effects also in the critical care setting, because these trials are typically moderately sized, thus limiting the statistical power to detect small differences between groups, and often rely on composite outcomes that include several components of different clinical importance. Notably, the advantages of this approach may be offset by several drawbacks (such as ignoring ties and difficulties in selecting and ranking endpoints) and challenges in appropriate clinical interpretation (i.e., establishing clinical meaningfulness of the observed effect size). In this perspective article, we present some key elements to implementing WR statistics in critical care trials, providing an overview of strengths, drawbacks, and potential applications of this method. To illustrate, we conduct a reevaluation of the HYPO-ECMO (Hypothermia during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) trial using the WR framework as a case example.

Prophylactic Anticoagulation and Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with Clinically Stable COVID-19 at Admission: From the Practice-Based Observational Study

Objectives: The potential benefit of routine prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with clinically stable coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial. Method: The CLOT-COVID Study was a multicenter observational study enrolling 2894 consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The current study population consisted of 1738 hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 at admission not requiring oxygen administration, who were divided into 2 groups: patients with prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 326) and those without (n = 1412). Results: Patients with prophylactic anticoagulation had more severe status of the worst severity of COVID-19 during hospitalization compared with those without (mild: 38% versus 82%, moderate: 55% versus 17%, and severe or death at discharge: 6.4% versus 0.7%, P <0.001). During hospitalization, 8 patients (0.5%) developed thrombosis, and the incidences of thrombosis were numerically higher in patients with more severe status of worst severity of COVID-19 during hospitalization (mild: 0.2%, moderate: 1.2%, and severe or death at discharge: 3.2%). Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with clinically stable COVID-19 at admission, patients who did not worsen in COVID-19 severity after admission rarely developed thrombosis, although patients with worsening of COVID-19 severity after admission more often received prophylactic anticoagulation and might have a higher risk of thrombosis.

Impact of vaccination on the association of COVID-19 with cardiovascular diseases: An OpenSAFELY cohort study

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events, but the implications of vaccination for this increased risk are uncertain. With the approval of NHS England, we quantified associations between COVID-19 diagnosis and cardiovascular diseases in different vaccination and variant eras using linked electronic health records for ~40% of the English population. We defined a 'pre-vaccination' cohort (18,210,937 people) in the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021), and 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' cohorts (13,572,399 and 3,161,485 people respectively) in the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). We showed that the incidence of each arterial thrombotic, venous thrombotic and other cardiovascular outcomes was substantially elevated during weeks 1-4 after COVID-19, compared with before or without COVID-19, but less markedly elevated in time periods beyond week 4. Hazard ratios were higher after hospitalised than non-hospitalised COVID-19 and higher in the pre-vaccination and unvaccinated cohorts than the vaccinated cohort. COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of cardiovascular events after COVID-19 infection. People who had COVID-19 before or without being vaccinated are at higher risk of cardiovascular events for at least two years.

The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A key question was whether increased intensity of anticoagulation would help prevent VTE and improve patient outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. At the start of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, our institution, Boston Medical Center, instituted a VTE risk stratification protocol based on patients' initial D-dimer levels, medical history, and presence of thrombosis to determine whether they should receive standard-dose prophylaxis, high-dose prophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study examining the association of degree of anticoagulation with outcomes in 915 hospitalized COVID-19 patients hospitalized initially on the general inpatient wards between March 1,, 2020, and June 1, 2020. Patients directly hospitalized in the ICU were excluded. Most, 813 patients (89%), in our cohort were on standard-dose prophylaxis; 32 patients (3.5%) received high-dose prophylaxis; 70 patients (7.7%), were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. VTE occurred in 45 patients (4.9%), and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.4% (49 deaths). On multivariable analysis of clinical outcomes in relation to type of anticoagulation, in the high-dose prophylaxis group, there was a trend towards increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.4 (0.8-7.5, 95% CI)) and increased ICU transfer (odds ratio 2.2 (0.9-5.7, 95% CI)). Our results suggest that patients receiving high-dose prophylaxis had more severe disease that was not mitigated by intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background

Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

Objectives

The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin.

Methods

Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21.

Results

Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low.

Conclusions

Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.

Efficacy and safety of MP1032 plus standard-of-care compared to standard-of-care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a multicentre, randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2a trial

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infections still have a significant impact on the global population. The existing vaccinations have contributed to reducing the severe disease courses, decreasing hospitalisations, and lowering the mortality rate. However, due to the variability of COVID-19 symptoms, the emergence of new variants and the uneven global distribution of vaccines there is still a great need for new therapy options. One promising approach is provided by host-directed therapies. We assessed here the efficacy and safety of MP1032, a host-directed anti-viral/anti-inflammatory drug in hospitalised patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IIa study, patients were randomised 2:1 to receive either 300 mg MP032 bid + Standard-of-Care (SoC) or placebo bid + SoC for 28 days. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and had moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms. The study spanned 20 sites in six countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Spain), assessing disease progression according the NIAID scale as the primary outcome on day 14. Secondary objectives included disease progression (day 28), disease resolution (days 14 and 28), mortality rate, COVID-19 related parameters and safety. Exposure-response analyses were performed, linking MP1032 to COVID-19 biomarkers (eGFR, D-dimer).

FINDINGS

132 patients were enrolled to receive MP1032 + SoC (n = 87) or placebo + SoC (n = 45). The patients were all white or Caucasian with a mean (median) age of 60.5 (63) years. Overall, only 10 patients were vaccinated, 5 in each group. No significant risk difference of disease progression could be detected between groups on both day 14 (9.8% MP1032 vs. 11.6% placebo) and day 28 with MH common risk differences of -0.276% (95% CI, -11.634 to 11.081; p = 0.962) and 1.722% (95% CI, -4.576 to 8.019; p = 0.592), respectively.The treatment with MP1032 + SoC was safe and well-tolerated. Overall, 182 TEAEs including 10 SAEs were reported in 53.5% (46/86) of patients of the verum group and in 57.8% (26/45) of patients of the placebo group; the SAEs occurred in 5.8% (5/86) and 6.7% (3/45) of verum and placebo patients, respectively. None of the SAEs was considered as related.

INTERPRETATION

Despite the study's limitation in size and the variation in concurrent SoCs, these findings warrant further investigation of MP1032 as a host-directed anti-viral drug candidate.

FUNDING

The study was funded by the COVID-19 Horizon Europe work programme and MetrioPharm AG.

Comparison of Standard Versus Intermediate Prophylaxis Dose for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection

Background: COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. VTE prophylaxis reduces the risk of these events. The optimal dose of VTE prophylaxis however remains uncertain. Objectives: To compare the incidence of VTE in patients treated with either standard dose VTE versus intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 1786 adult patients admitted into the hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 infection between April 2020 to September 2021. For analysis, patients were divided into 2 cohorts: either standard dose prophylaxis treatment group (patients who received either unfractionated heparin 5000units 3 times a day or enoxaparin 30-40 mg daily subcutaneously) or intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis group (patients received either unfractionated heparin 7500 units 3 times daily or enoxaparin 30-40 mg twice a day subcutaneously). The primary outcome was incidence of VTE events described as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Secondary outcome was bleeding events. Results: During the study period, 398 (22%) patients were primarily treated with standard dose VTE prophylaxis, whereas 1388 (78%) patients were treated with intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. There was a significantly higher incidence of venous thromboembolism events noted in the standard dose prophylaxis treatment group when compared with the intermediate dose prophylaxis group (25/398 (6.3%) vs 35/1388 (2.5%) P < .001, [Odds Ratio 2.6197, 95% confidence interval = 1.5482-4.4327]). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, adjusting for age, obesity, and smoking, with the intermediate dose prophylaxis treatment group as the referent category revealed higher odds for incident venous thromboembolism events in the standard dose prophylaxis group. There was no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the 2 treatment groups (9 (2.3%) for standard dose prophylaxis group vs 46 (3.3%) for intermediate dose prophylaxis group P = .26). Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, patients receiving intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis experienced lower incident rates of venous thromboembolism events compared to those receiving standard dose VTE prophylaxis without a statistically significant increase in the risk of bleeding events.

Which are the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategies for hospitalized patients with COVID-19? current controversies

Novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) represents a significant risk factor for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized with both moderate and severe/critical COVID-19. Herein, we present a brief updated review on emerging robust data on diverse thromboprophylaxis strategies used to mitigate VTE complications, as well as a personal point of view of current controversies in regards the use of therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation strategies, particularly in the moderately-ill subgroup of patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease

Millions of people worldwide have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Affected patients are at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease for several reasons. Among various comorbidities, CKD is associated with the more severe forms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This is particularly true for patients receiving dialysis or for kidney recipients. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several CV complications have been observed in affected subjects, spanning acute inflammatory manifestations, CV events, thrombotic episodes and arrythmias. Several pathogenetic mechanisms have been hypothesized, including direct cytopathic viral effects on the myocardium, endothelial damage and hypercoagulability. This spectrum of disease can occur during the acute phase of the infection, but also months after recovery. This review is focussed on the CV complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with particular interest in their implications for the CKD population.

Applying the win ratio method in clinical trials of orphan drugs: an analysis of data from the COMET trial of avalglucosidase alfa in patients with late-onset Pompe disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials for rare diseases often include multiple endpoints that capture the effects of treatment on different disease domains. In many rare diseases, the primary endpoint is not standardized across trials. The win ratio approach was designed to analyze multiple endpoints of interest in clinical trials and has mostly been applied in cardiovascular trials. Here, we applied the win ratio approach to data from COMET, a phase 3 trial in late-onset Pompe disease, to illustrate how this approach can be used to analyze multiple endpoints in the orphan drug context.

METHODS

All possible participant pairings from both arms of COMET were compared sequentially on changes at week 49 in upright forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Each participant's response for the two endpoints was first classified as a meaningful improvement, no meaningful change, or a meaningful decline using thresholds based on published minimal clinically important differences (FVC ± 4% predicted, 6MWT ± 39 m). Each comparison assessed whether the outcome with avalglucosidase alfa (AVA) was better than (win), worse than (loss), or equivalent to (tie) the outcome with alglucosidase alfa (ALG). If tied on FVC, 6MWT was compared. In this approach, the treatment effect is the ratio of wins to losses ("win ratio"), with ties excluded.

RESULTS

In the 2499 possible pairings (51 receiving AVA × 49 receiving ALG), the win ratio was 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-4.29, p = 0.005) when FVC was compared before 6MWT. When the order was reversed, the win ratio was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.13-3.62, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The win ratio approach can be used in clinical trials of rare diseases to provide meaningful insight on treatment benefits from multiple endpoints and across disease domains.

Effectiveness of Drug Repurposing and Natural Products Against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a betacoronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, causing respiratory disorders, and even death in some individuals, if not appropriately treated in time. To face the pandemic, preventive measures have been taken against contagions and the application of vaccines to prevent severe disease and death cases. For the COVID-19 treatment, antiviral, antiparasitic, anticoagulant and other drugs have been reused due to limited specific medicaments for the disease. Drug repurposing is an emerging strategy with therapies that have already tested safe in humans. One promising alternative for systematic experimental screening of a vast pool of compounds is computational drug repurposing (in silico assay). Using these tools, new uses for approved drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zidovudine, ribavirin, lamivudine, remdesivir, lopinavir and tenofovir/emtricitabine have been conducted, showing effectiveness in vitro and in silico against SARS-CoV-2 and some of these, also in clinical trials. Additionally, therapeutic options have been sought in natural products (terpenoids, alkaloids, saponins and phenolics) with promising in vitro and in silico results for use in COVID-19 disease. Among these, the most studied are resveratrol, quercetin, hesperidin, curcumin, myricetin and betulinic acid, which were proposed as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Among the drugs reused to control the SARS-CoV2, better results have been observed for remdesivir in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Regarding natural products, resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and in vivo, a nebulized formulation has demonstrated to alleviate the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. This review shows the evidence of drug repurposing efficacy and the potential use of natural products as a treatment for COVID-19. For this, a search was carried out in PubMed, SciELO and ScienceDirect databases for articles about drugs approved or under study and natural compounds recognized for their antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.

Choice and Duration of Anticoagulation for Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent medical condition with high morbidity, mortality, and associated costs. Anticoagulation remains the main treatment for VTE, though the decision on when, how, and for how long to administer anticoagulants is increasingly complex. This review highlights the different phases of VTE management, with special circumstances for consideration such as antiphospholipid syndrome, coronary artery disease, cancer-associated thrombus, COVID-19, and future anticoagulation options. Anticoagulation management will continue to be a complex decision, applying evidence-based medicine to individual patients with the hope of maximizing effectiveness while minimizing risks.

Considerations for Perioperative Thromboembolic Risk Mitigation in Actively and Recently COVID-19-Positive Patients Undergoing Hand Surgery

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID) induces a hypercoagulable state causing an increased risk of venous and arterial thromboses. Distal limb and microvascular circulation are critical to the success of many hand surgeries, and patients who are actively or recently infected with COVID may be at a higher risk for perioperative thrombotic events. Little information is available regarding how to handle actively or recently infected COVID patients, including preoperative risk assessment, intraoperative decision making, and postoperative considerations regarding thrombotic risk. Our aim was to review the literature to determine how the hand surgeon can best prepare for and manage the actively or recently COVID-positive patients undergoing hand surgeries.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Venous Thromboembolism During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with increased risk for macro- and micro-thrombi. Consensus guidelines recommend use of thromboprophylaxis in nonobstetric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the hospital. National-level studies evaluating venous thromboembolism (VTE) among pregnant and postpartum individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been completed. We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals aged 18 years or older delivering at more than 20 weeks of gestation with data in the MarketScan Commercial Insurance Database from 2016 through 2020. Of 811,008 deliveries, SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy or through 6 weeks postpartum was associated with increased risk for VTE compared with no infection (1.0% vs 0.5%, adjusted hazard ratio 2.62, 95% CI 1.60-4.29). Findings support further consideration of thromboprophylaxis in the obstetric population with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis. New evidence

Recent publications have questioned the efficacy of using therapeutic or intermediate doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in COVID-19 patients, especially in the most severe patients. In order to update these recommendations, a non-systematic review has been carried out in the main medical databases. A total of 14 randomized clinical trials, 14 meta-analyses and the recommendations of 12 scientific societies were selected, stratified according to the type of patient (outpatient, hospitalized, admitted to critical care or post-discharge). The efficacy of LMWH and other therapeutic approaches (rivaroxaban, apixaban, sulodexide, acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitors) has been analyzed. The findings recommend using standard doses of LMWH as thromboprophylaxis in critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients and therapeutic doses in non-critically hospitalized patients if the risk of bleeding is low. In outpatients and those discharged from the hospital, LMWH could be used at a prophylactic dose if there are thrombotic risk factors, and the bleeding risk is low. It is not recommended to associate antiplatelet agents with LMWH unless previously indicated.

COVID-19 Pneumonia and Cytokine Storm Syndrome

Virus-associated cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) has been recognized for a long time and the classic viruses associated are the herpes viruses EBV, CMV, and HHV-8 as described in chapters IVa,b. In addition, pandemic viruses such as influenza, SARS, and MERS can result in severe CSS that might ultimately lead to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death [1-3]. A new pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 that started in 2019 has defined another chapter in the virus-associated CSS. The clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection has many faces. In most people, it will be asymptomatic, but it can also result in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, ARDS, and multiorgan failure depending on age, comorbidities, and immune status [4]. In addition, this pandemic has known many different stages and developed in a unique way in the first 2 years. It started in a setting where there was no immunity to the virus and after a year, highly effective vaccines were introduced and herd immunity built up over time. However, vaccine effectiveness was waning over time depending on multiple factors, and novel variant strains of the virus circulated across different areas in the world. Antiviral therapy was developed and introduced, and treatment changed from giving no immunomodulatory treatment, followed by the introduction of corticosteroids [5], and later the addition of more targeted strategies such as JAK inhibitors [6] and blocking IL-6 signaling [7]. Therefore, the scientific literature published on COVID-19 must be seen in the context of a highly dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic, making it difficult to compare results from early studies to more recent reports even within 2 years. Still, a lot has been learned over a very short period. It has become apparent that severe COVID-19 is predominantly a disease of immune dysregulation with components that can be defined as CSS. It has unique features and overlapping characteristics with other CSSs, and immunological treatment addressing the CSS has been extensively explored, which will be described here.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

It's in the blood: a review of the hematological system in SARS-CoV-2-associated COVID-19

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an unprecedented global healthcare crisis. While SARS-CoV-2-associated COVID-19 affects primarily the respiratory system, patients with COVID-19 frequently develop extrapulmonary manifestations. Notably, changes in the hematological system, including lymphocytopenia, neutrophilia and significant abnormalities of hemostatic markers, were observed early in the pandemic. Hematological manifestations have since been recognized as important parameters in the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and in the management of patients with COVID-19. In this narrative review, we summarize the state-of-the-art regarding the hematological and hemostatic abnormalities observed in patients with SARS-CoV-2-associated COVID-19, as well as the current understanding of the hematological system in the pathophysiology of acute and chronic SARS-CoV-2-associated COVID-19.

Longitudinal analysis of chest Q-SPECT/CT in patients with severe COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Patients with COVID-19 have an increased risk for microvascular lung thrombosis. In order to evaluate the type and prevalence of perfusion defects, we performed a longitudinal analysis of combined perfusion single-photon emission and low-dose computed tomography (Q-SPECT/CT scan) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 (B.1.1.7 variant SARS-CoV-2) and respiratory insufficiency underwent chest Q-SPECT/CT during hospitalization, and 3 months after discharge. At follow-up (FU), Q-SPECT/CT were analyzed and compared with pulmonary function tests (PFT), blood analysis (CRP, D-dimers, ferritin), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, and high-resolution CT scans (HRCT). Patients with one or more segmental perfusion defects outside the area of inflammation (PDOI) were treated with anticoagulation until FU.

RESULTS

At baseline, PDOI were found in 50 of 105 patients (47.6 %). At FU, Q-SPECT/CT scans had improved significantly (p < 0.001) and PDOI were recorded in 14 of 77 (18.2 %) patients. There was a significant correlation between mMRC score and the number of segmental perfusion defects (r = 0.511, p < 0.001), and a weaker correlation with DLCO (r = -0.333, p = 0.002) and KCO (r = -0.373, p = 0.001) at FU. Neither corticosteroid therapy nor HRCT results showed an influence on Q-SPECT/CT changes (p = 0.94, p = 0.74). CRP, D-Dimers and ferritin improved but did not show any association with the FU Q-SPECT/CT results (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Segmental mismatched perfusion defects are common in severe COVID-19 and are correlated with the degree of dyspnea. Longitudinal analyses of Q-SPECT/CT scans in severe COVID-19 may help understand possible mechanisms of long COVID and prolonged dyspnea.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Arterial Thrombosis and Thromboembolism in COVID-19: An American College of Chest Physicians Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey.

RESULTS

The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19.

INTERPRETATION

The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients.

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial

BACKGROUND

An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain.

DESIGN

The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ± 3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ± 3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately.

CONCLUSION

The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941.

COVID-19 and the Concept of Thrombo-Inflammation: Review of the Relationship between Immune Response, Endothelium and Coagulation

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has revealed a complex interplay between inflammation and coagulation, leading to the emergence of the concept of thrombo-inflammation. This concept recognizes that COVID-19 is not solely a respiratory illness, but a systemic disease with significant vascular and hematological components. COVID-19 is associated with an unusual prothrombotic state, with intense endothelial activation leading to vasculopathy, cytokine storm, complement system activation and a hypercoagulability state (the activation of platelets and the coagulation cascade, impaired fibrinolysis). The aim of this review is to discuss the different pathological pathways described in COVID-19 that lead to thromboembolic events. Widespread vaccination and post-COVID-19 immunization allows control over the severity of this pandemic. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19 can improve the management of frail patients who are hospitalized in intensive care units.

What is the Optimal Treatment Regimen of Low-MolecularWeight Heparin in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia?

OBJECTIVE

The optimal anticoagulant treatment regimen in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is uncertain. This study aimed to compare the rates of disease progression and mortality in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) according to baseline d-dimer levels and in those who received a fixed-dose regimen irrespective of the d-dimer level.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted to a university hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia during a 1-year period. The protocol for d-dimer-driven therapy (on-protocol) was as follows: prophylactic dose when the baseline level is <1000 ng/mL, intermediate dose when the level is between 1000 and 3000 ng/mL, and therapeutic dose when the level is >3000 ng/mL. We compared the progression and mortality rates between the on-protocol and off-protocol treatment groups. The offprotocol group consisted of patients that received a fixed-dose LMWH regimen, which was not in accordance with the defined protocol.

RESULTS

Of 384 patients (mean age 61.5 ± 15.9 years, 216 male), 294 patients with complete data composed the study group, and 174 patients were treated on-protocol and 120 patients were treated off-protocol. The on-protocol group had lower C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and d-dimer levels and higher SpO2/FiO2 levels at admission. Disease progression developed in 45/174 on-protocol patients (25.9%) vs. 53/120 off-protocol patients (44.2%) during the follow-up (P = .001), and mortality was 29 (16.7%) vs. 32 (26.7%), respectively (P = .041). Logistic regression analysis was performed and included age, presence of comorbidities, LMWH regimen, baseline SpO2/FiO2, CRP, and LDH levels as independent variables. The presence of cardiac comorbidity, age, CRP, and LDH levels, but not the LMWH treatment regimen, were associated with both disease progression and mortality.

CONCLUSION

A d-dimer-driven LMWH treatment protocol is not associated with better clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Adjusted win ratio using the inverse probability of treatment weighting

The win ratio method has been increasingly applied in the design and analysis of clinical trials. However, the win ratio method is a univariate approach that does not allow for adjusting for baseline imbalances in covariates, although a stratified win ratio can be calculated when the number of strata is small. This paper proposes an adjusted win ratio to control for such imbalances by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. We derive the adjusted win ratio with its variance and suggest three IPTW adjustments: IPTW-average treatment effect (IPTW-ATE), stabilized IPTW-ATE (SIPTW-ATE) and IPTW-average treatment effect in the treated (IPTW-ATT). The proposed adjusted methods are applied to analyse a composite outcome in the CHARM trial. The statistical properties of the methods are assessed through simulations. Results show that adjusted win ratio methods can correct the win ratio for covariate imbalances at baseline. Simulation results show that the three proposed adjusted win ratios have similar power to detect the treatment difference and have slightly lower power than the corresponding adjusted Cox models when the assumption of proportional hazards holds true but have consistently higher power than adjusted Cox models when the proportional hazard assumption is violated.

Platelet aggregates detected using quantitative phase imaging associate with COVID-19 severity

BACKGROUND

The clinical spectrum of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection ranges from an asymptomatic to life-threatening disease. Considering the broad spectrum of severity, reliable biomarkers are required for early risk stratification and prediction of clinical outcomes. Despite numerous efforts, no COVID-19-specific biomarker has been established to guide further diagnostic or even therapeutic approaches, most likely due to insufficient validation, methodical complexity, or economic factors. COVID-19-associated coagulopathy is a hallmark of the disease and is mainly attributed to dysregulated immunothrombosis. This process describes an intricate interplay of platelets, innate immune cells, the coagulation cascade, and the vascular endothelium leading to both micro- and macrothrombotic complications. In this context, increased levels of immunothrombotic components, including platelet and platelet-leukocyte aggregates, have been described and linked to COVID-19 severity.

METHODS

Here, we describe a label-free quantitative phase imaging approach, allowing the identification of cell-aggregates and their components at single-cell resolution within 30 min, which prospectively qualifies the method as point-of-care (POC) testing.

RESULTS

We find a significant association between the severity of COVID-19 and the amount of platelet and platelet-leukocyte aggregates. Additionally, we observe a linkage between severity, aggregate composition, and size distribution of platelets in aggregates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a POC-compatible method for rapid quantitative analysis of blood cell aggregates in patients with COVID-19.

Alveolar Hyperoxia and Exacerbation of Lung Injury in Critically Ill SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

Acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a prominent feature of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) critical illness. The severity of gas exchange impairment correlates with worse prognosis, and AHRF requiring mechanical ventilation is associated with substantial mortality. Persistent impaired gas exchange leading to hypoxemia often warrants the prolonged administration of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). In SARS-CoV-2 AHRF, systemic vasculopathy with lung microthrombosis and microangiopathy further exacerbates poor gas exchange due to alveolar inflammation and oedema. Capillary congestion with microthrombosis is a common autopsy finding in the lungs of patients who die with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. The need for a high FiO2 to normalise arterial hypoxemia and tissue hypoxia can result in alveolar hyperoxia. This in turn can lead to local alveolar oxidative stress with associated inflammation, alveolar epithelial cell apoptosis, surfactant dysfunction, pulmonary vascular abnormalities, resorption atelectasis, and impairment of innate immunity predisposing to secondary bacterial infections. While oxygen is a life-saving treatment, alveolar hyperoxia may exacerbate pre-existing lung injury. In this review, we provide a summary of oxygen toxicity mechanisms, evaluating the consequences of alveolar hyperoxia in COVID-19 and propose established and potential exploratory treatment pathways to minimise alveolar hyperoxia.

Use of Win Statistics to Analyze Outcomes in the DAPA-HF and DELIVER Trials

BACKGROUND: The primary end point in most heart failure (HF) trials is a composite of time to a first worsening HF event or cardiovascular death. Prevention of recurrent events and improvements in symptoms/quality of life are also important for patients but are usually analyzed separately. Win statistics can integrate all these outcomes into a single composite end point, which is analyzed in hierarchical order, reflecting the clinical importance of each component. METHODS: The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF, n=4744) and Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER, n=6263) trials enrolled patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV HF, elevated natriuretic peptides, and either an ejection fraction of 40% or less (DAPA-HF) or greater than 40% and left atrial enlargement/left ventricular hypertrophy (DELIVER). We examined the effects of dapagliflozin compared with placebo on a hierarchical composite outcome, including cardiovascular death, total (first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations, total urgent HF visits, and improvement/deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ-TSS; range from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) at 8 months. RESULTS: For this composite outcome, the win ratio was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.36) in the pooled cohort, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.23 to 1.43) in the DAPA-HF trial, and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.36) in the DELIVER trial. Win odds and net benefit in overall patients were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.14 to 1.24) and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.6 to 10.9%), respectively. In the overall pooled cohort, the majority of wins and losses were accounted for by KCCQ-TSS; 52.4% were settled by the KCCQ-TSS tier in the pooled cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In both the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, dapagliflozin led to a significant improvement in composite outcomes that incorporated patient-reported outcomes along with total HF events, as well as cardiovascular deaths. These analyses provided a comprehensive presentation of win statistics and illustrated the utility and flexibility of win statistics in describing the effects of dapagliflozin in two recent clinical trials in patients with HF. (Funded by British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence and others; clinical trial registration numbers, NCT03036124 and NCT03619213.)