Search

BackgroundWe investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsWe conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality.ResultsBetween October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00–1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41– 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo).ConclusionsAddition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04593940).

Background Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) reduces emergency department length of stay compared with standard evaluation in patients with low‐ and intermediate‐risk acute chest pain. Whether diabetic patients have similar benefits is unknown. Methods and Results In this prespecified analysis of the Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT II) multicenter trial, we randomized 1000 patients (17% diabetic) with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome to CCTA or standard evaluation. The rate of acute coronary syndrome was 8% in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P=1.0). Length of stay was unaffected by the CCTA strategy for diabetic patients (23.9 versus 27.2 hours, P=0.86) but was reduced for nondiabetic patients compared with standard evaluation (8.4 versus 26.5 hours, P50% stenosis had a high prevalence of acute coronary syndrome, invasive coronary angiography, and revascularization. Conclusions Knowledge of coronary anatomy with CCTA is beneficial for diabetic patients and can discriminate between lower risk patients with no or little coronary artery disease who can be discharged immediately and higher risk patients with moderate to severe disease who warrant further workup. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01084239.

Whether a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan provides added value to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in emergency department patients with acute chest pain remains unsettled. We sought to determine the value of CAC scan in patients with acute chest pain undergoing CCTA.In the multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) II trial, we enrolled low-intermediate risk emergency department patients with symptoms suggesting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this prespecified subanalysis of 473 patients (54±8 years, 53% men) who underwent both CAC scanning and CCTA, the ACS rate was 8%. Overall, 53% of patients had CAC=0 of whom 2 (0.8%) developed ACS, whereas 7% had CAC400 with 49% whom developed ACS. C-statistic of CAC0 was 0.76, whereas that using the optimal cut point of CAC≥22 was 0.81. Continuous CAC score had lower discriminatory capacity than CCTA (c-statistic, 0.86 versus 0.92; P=0.03). Compared with CCTA alone, there was no benefit combining CAC score with CCTA (c-statistic, 0.93; P=0.88) or with selective CCTA strategies after initial CAC0 or optimal cut point CAC≥22 (P≥0.09). Mean radiation dose from CAC acquisition was 1.4±0.7 mSv. Higher CAC scores resulted in more nondiagnostic CCTA studies although the majority remained interpretable.In emergency department patients with acute chest pain, CAC score does not provide incremental value beyond CCTA for ACS diagnosis. CAC=0 does not exclude ACS, nor a high CAC score preclude interpretation of CCTA in most patients. Thus, CAC results should not influence the decision to proceed with CCTA, and the decision to perform a CAC scan should be balanced with the additional radiation exposure required.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01084239.