Coagulopathy of hospitalised COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial of Therapeutic Anticoagulation versus Standard Care as a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (RAPID COVID COAG - RAPID Trial): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sholzberg M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7943934 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Coagulopathy of hospitalised COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial of Therapeutic Anticoagulation versus Standard Care as a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (RAPID COVID COAG - RAPID Trial): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Sholzberg Michelle M Tang Grace H GH Negri Elnara E Rahhal Hassan H Kreuziger Lisa Baumann LB Pompilio Carlos E CE James Paula P Fralick Michael M AlHamzah Musaad M Alomran Faris F Tseng Eric E Lim Gloria G Lillicrap David D Carrier Marc M Áinle Fionnuala Ní FN Beckett Andrew A da Costa Bruno R BR Thorpe Kevin K Middeldorp Saskia S Lee Agnes A Cushman Mary M Jüni Peter P
Trials 20210310 1
<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the effect of therapeutic anticoagulation, with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH, high dose nomogram), compared to standard care in hospitalized patients admitted for COVID-19 with an elevated D-dimer on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to 28 days.<h4>Trial design</h4>Open-label, parallel, 1:1, phase 3, 2-arm random ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide (L) added to the standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in COVID-19 patients hospitalised with moderate/critical clinical symptoms.DesignProspective, open-label, multicentre, stratified, randomised clinical trial.SettingFive hospitals in UK and India, from September 2020 to May 2021.ParticipantsAdults with PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection with moderate/critical symptoms within 15 days of onset.InterventionLeflunomide 100 mg/day (3 days) followed by 10-20 mg/day (7 days) added to standard care.Primary outcomesThe time to clinical improvement (TTCI) defined as two-point reduction on a clinical status scale or live discharge prior to 28 days; safety profile measured by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within 28 days.ResultsEligible patients (n=214; age 56.3±14.9 years; 33% female) were randomised to SOC+L (n=104) and SOC group (n=110), stratified according to their clinical risk profile. TTCI was 7 vs 8 days in SOC+L vs SOC group (HR 1.317; 95% CI 0.980 to 1.768; p=0.070). Incidence of serious AEs was similar between the groups and none was attributed to leflunomide. In sensitivity analyses, excluding 10 patients not fulfilling the inclusion criteria and 3 who withdrew consent before leflunomide treatment, TTCI was 7 vs 8 days (HR 1.416, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.935; p=0.028), indicating a trend in favour of the intervention group. All-cause mortality rate was similar between groups, 9/104 vs 10/110. Duration of oxygen dependence was shorter in the SOC+L group being a median 6 days (IQR 4-8) compared with 7 days (IQR 5-10) in SOC group (p=0.047).ConclusionLeflunomide, added to the SOC treatment for COVID-19, was safe and well tolerated but had no major impact on clinical outcomes. It may shorten the time of oxygen dependence by 1 day and thereby improve TTCI/hospital discharge in moderately affected COVID-19 patients.Trial registration numbersEudraCT Number: 2020-002952-18, NCT05007678.
| S-EPMC10105917 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11205124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) first emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and has caused a global pandemic of a scale unprecedented in the modern era. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can be asymptomatic, moderate symptomatic or develop severe COVID-19. Other than the typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 also develop a distinctive systemic coagulopathy, known as COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC), which is different from sepsis-related forms of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Endotheliopathy or endotheliitis are other unique features of CAC. The endothelial cell perturbation can further increase the risk of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients. In this review, we will summarize the current knowledge on COVID-19 coagulopathy and the possible mechanisms for the condition. We also discuss the results of clinical trials testing methods for mitigating thrombosis events in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9395291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9 hospitals (3 academic hospitals and 6 non-academic hospitals) in Sweden between 1 June 2020 and 17 May 2021.ParticipantsAdults hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving oxygen therapy.InterventionInhaled ciclesonide 320 µg two times a day for 14 days versus standard care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was duration of oxygen therapy, an indicator of time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcome was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation/death.ResultsData from 98 participants were analysed (48 receiving ciclesonide and 50 receiving standard care; median (IQR) age, 59.5 (49-67) years; 67 (68%) men). Median (IQR) duration of oxygen therapy was 5.5 (3-9) days in the ciclesonide group and 4 (2-7) days in the standard care group (HR for termination of oxygen therapy 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.11), with the upper 95% CI being compatible with a 10% relative reduction in oxygen therapy duration, corresponding to a <1 day absolute reduction in a post-hoc calculation). Three participants in each group died/received invasive mechanical ventilation (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.15 to 5.32)). The trial was discontinued early due to slow enrolment.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving oxygen therapy, this trial ruled out, with 0.95 confidence, a treatment effect of ciclesonide corresponding to more than a 1 day reduction in duration of oxygen therapy. Ciclesonide is unlikely to improve this outcome meaningfully.Trial registration numberNCT04381364.
| S-EPMC9950582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThrombosis occurs frequently in COVID-19. While the exact mechanism is unclear, 3 processes seem to play important roles in sepsis-related thrombosis and mortality: tissue factor expression on circulating monocytes and microparticles, hypercoagulability (increased clot firmness), and hypofibrinolysis. Rotational thromboelastometry is a point-of-care viscoelastic technique that uses the viscoelastic properties of blood to monitor coagulation. Using various assays, viscoelastometry could monitor this triad of changes in severely ill, COVID-19-positive patients. Similarly, with the increased incidence of coagulopathy, many patients are placed on anticoagulants, making management more difficult depending on the agents utilized. Viscoelastometry might also be used in these settings to monitor anticoagulation status and guide therapy, as it has in other areas.Case presentationWe present a case series of 6 patients with different stages of disease and different management plans. These cases occurred at the height of the pandemic in New York City, which limited testing abilities. We first discuss the idea of using the NaHEPTEM test as a marker of tissue factor expression in COVID-19. We then present cases where patients are on different anticoagulants and review how viscoelastometry might be used in a patient on anticoagulation with COVID-19.ConclusionIn a disease such as COVID-19, which has profound effects on hemostasis and coagulation, viscoelastometry may aid in patient triage, disease course monitoring, and anticoagulation management.
| S-EPMC8018202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a worldwide pandemic, and patients with the infection are referred to as having COVID-19. Although COVID-19 is commonly considered a respiratory disease, there is clearly a thrombotic potential that was not expected. The pathophysiology of the disease and subsequent coagulopathy produce an inflammatory, hypercoagulable, and hypofibrinolytic state. Several observational studies have demonstrated surprisingly high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in both general ward and intensive care patients with COVID-19. Many of these observational studies demonstrate high rates of VTE despite patients being on standard, or even higher intensity, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Fibrinolytic therapy has also been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Unfortunately, high quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. A literature search was performed to provide the most up-to-date information on the pathophysiology, coagulopathy, risk of VTE, and prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. These topics are reviewed in detail, along with practical issues of anticoagulant selection and duration. Although many international organizations have produced guidelines or consensus statements, they do not all cover the same issues regarding anticoagulant therapy for patients with COVID-19, and they do not all agree. These statements and the most recent literature are combined into a list of clinical considerations that clinicians can use for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7537066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments.MethodsIn LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed.FindingsPatients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death.InterpretationLenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown.FundingHumanigen.
| S-EPMC8635458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Combining the antibiotic azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine induces airway immunomodulatory effects, with the latter also having in vitro antiviral properties. This may improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Placebo-controlled double-blind randomised multicentre trial. Patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to hospital for ≤48 h (not intensive care) with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription PCR test were recruited. The intervention was 500 mg daily azithromycin for 3 days followed by 250 mg daily azithromycin for 12 days combined with 200 mg twice-daily hydroxychloroquine for all 15 days. The control group received placebo/placebo. The primary outcome was days alive and discharged from hospital within 14 days (DAOH14). After randomisation of 117 patients, at the first planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment due to futility, based on pre-specified criteria. Consequently, the trial was terminated on 1 February 2021. 61 patients received the combined intervention and 56 patients received placebo. In the intervention group, patients had a median (interquartile range) 9.0 (3-11) DAOH14 versus 9.0 (7-10) DAOH14 in the placebo group (p=0.90). The primary safety outcome, death from all causes on day 30, occurred for one patient in the intervention group versus two patients receiving placebo (p=0.52), and readmittance or death within 30 days occurred for nine patients in the intervention group versus six patients receiving placebo (p=0.57). The combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine did not improve survival or length of hospitalisation in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8186006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationalePulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival.ResultsOverall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups.ConclusionsMethylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
| S-EPMC8971731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPassive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited.MethodsIn this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581.FindingsFrom Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; pinteraction=0·001).InterpretationWhen administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC8797010 | biostudies-literature