Search

Context: Studies have found that patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) often do not receive evidence-based therapies in community practice. This is particularly true in low- and middle-income countries.Objective: To evaluate whether a multifaceted quality improvement (QI) intervention can improve the use of evidence-based therapies and reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events among patients with ACS in a middle-income country.Design, Setting, and Participants: The BRIDGE-ACS (Brazilian Intervention to Increase Evidence Usage in Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial, a cluster-randomized (concealed allocation) trial conducted among 34 clusters (public hospitals) in Brazil and enrolling a total of 1150 patients with ACS from March 15, 2011, through November 2, 2011, with follow-up through January 27, 2012.Intervention: Multifaceted QI intervention including educational materials for clinicians, reminders, algorithms, and case manager training, vs routine practice (control).Main Outcome Measures: Primary end point was the percentage of eligible patients who received all evidence-based therapies (aspirin, clopidogrel, anticoagulants, and statins) during the first 24 hours in patients without contraindications.Results: Mean age of the patients enrolled was 62 (SD, 13) years; 68.6% were men, and 40% presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 35.6% with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 23.6% with unstable angina. The randomized clusters included 79.5% teaching hospitals, all from major urban areas and 41.2% with 24-hour percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities. Among eligible patients (923/1150 [80.3%]), 67.9% in the intervention vs 49.5% in the control group received all eligible acute therapies (population average odds ratio [OR(PA)], 2.64 [95% CI, 1.28-5.45]). Similarly, among eligible patients (801/1150 [69.7%]), those in the intervention group were more likely to receive all eligible acute and discharge medications (50.9% vs 31.9%; OR(PA),, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.08-5.74]). Overall composite adherence scores were higher in the intervention clusters (89% vs 81.4%; mean difference, 8.6% [95% CI, 2.2%-15.0%]). In-hospital cardiovascular event rates were 5.5% in the intervention group vs 7.0% in the control group (OR(PA), 0.72 [95% CI, 0.36-1.43]); 30-day all-cause mortality was 7.0% vs 8.4% (ORPA, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46-1.34]).Conclusion: Among patients with ACS treated in Brazil, a multifaceted educational intervention resulted in significant improvement in the use of evidence-based therapies.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00958958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are commonly used respiratory support therapies for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF)., Objective: To assess whether HFNO is noninferior to NIV on the rates of endotracheal intubation or death at 7 days in 5 patient groups with ARF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This noninferiority, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adults (aged ≥18 years; classified as 5 patient groups with ARF: nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia, immunocompromised with hypoxemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbation with respiratory acidosis, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema [ACPE], or hypoxemic COVID-19, which was added as a separate group on June 26, 2023) at 33 hospitals in Brazil between November 2019 and November 2023 (final follow-up: April 26, 2024)., Interventions: High-flow nasal oxygen (n = 883) or NIV (n = 883)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days assessed using a bayesian hierarchical model with dynamic borrowing across patient groups. Noninferiority was defined by a posterior probability of 0.992 or greater for an odds ratio (OR) less than 1.55., Results: Among 1800 patients, 1766 completed the study (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 707 [40%] were women). The primary outcome of endotracheal intubation or death at 7 days occurred in 39% (344/883) in the HFNO group vs 38% (336/883) in the NIV group. In the immunocompromised with hypoxemia patient group, the primary outcome occurred in 57.1% (16/28) in the HFNO group vs 36.4% (8/22) in the NIV group; enrollment was stopped for futility (final OR, 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.81-1.39; noninferiority posterior probability [NPP], 0.989). In the nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia group, the primary outcome occurred in 32.5% (81/249) in the HFNO group vs 33.1% (78/236) in the NIV group (OR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.81-1.26]; NPP, 0.999). In the ACPE group, the primary outcome occurred in 10.3% (14/136) in the HFNO group vs 21.3% (29/136) in the NIV group (OR, 0.97 [95% CrI, 0.73-1.23]; NPP, 0.997). In the hypoxemic COVID-19 group, the primary outcome occurred in 51.3% (223/435) in the HFNO group vs 47.0% (210/447) in the NIV group (OR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.94-1.38]; NPP, 0.997). In the COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis group, the primary outcome occurred in 28.6% (10/35) in the HFNO group vs 26.2% (11/42) in the NIV group (OR, 1.05 [95% CrI, 0.79-1.36]; NPP, 0.992). However, a post hoc analysis without dynamic borrowing across the 5 ARF patient groups revealed some qualitatively different results in patients with COPD, immunocompromised patients, and patients with ACPE. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar (9.4% of patients in HFNO group vs 9.9% in NIV group)., Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with NIV, HFNO met prespecified criteria for noninferiority for the primary outcome of endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days in 4 of the 5 patient groups with ARF. However, the small sample sizes in some patient groups and the sensitivity of the findings to the choice of analysis model suggests the need for further study in patients with COPD, immunocompromised patients, and patients with ACPE., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03643939.

Purpose: To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients., Material and Methods: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life., Results: From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520)., Conclusion: Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020., Gov Identifier: NCT04549922., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None. This study was funded by Ionis Pharmaceutical, US, through a grant provided to HCor. The sponsor reviewed and agreed with the protocol, but had no role in any other aspect of the trial execution. MJ and GB were Ionis employees at the time this study was designed and provided relevant feedback on design of the trial and reviewed the final manuscript for intellectually relevant content. FGZ has received consulting fees from Baxter, unrelated to the scope of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study aimed to assess whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration according to best respiratory system compliance and tidal volume adjustment increases the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)., Methods: This is a multi-centre, randomised trial, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. Patients were randomised to a driving pressure-limiting strategy or low PEEP strategy based on a PEEP:FiO 2 table. All patients received volume assist-control mode until day 3 or when considered ready for spontaneous modes of ventilation. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days within 28 days. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality at 90 days., Results: The trial was stopped because of recruitment fatigue after 214 patients were randomised. In total, 198 patients (n=96 intervention group, n=102 control group) were available for analysis (median age 63 yr, [interquartile range 47-73 yr]; 36% were women). The mean difference in driving pressure up to day 3 between the intervention and control groups was -0.7 cm H 2 O (95% confidence interval -1.4 to -0.1 cm H 2 O). Mean ventilator-free days were 6 (sd 9) in the driving pressure-limiting strategy group and 7 (9) in the control group (proportional odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.32; P=0.28). There were no significant differences regarding secondary outcomes., Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS secondary to community-acquired pneumonia, a driving pressure-limiting strategy did not increase the number of ventilator-free days compared with a standard low PEEP strategy within 28 days., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04972318., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nuts consumption is related to cardioprotective effects on primary cardiovascular prevention, but studies conducted in secondary prevention are small, scarce and controversial. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effects of a regional and sustainable cardioprotective diet added or not with an affordable mixed nuts on cardiometabolic features in patients with previous myocardial infarction., Methods: DICA-NUTS study is a national, multi-center, and superiority-parallel randomized clinical trial. Males and females over 40 years old diagnosed with previous myocardial infarction in the last 2 to 6 months were included. Patients were allocated into two groups: the Brazilian Cardioprotective diet (DICA Br) supplemented with 30 g/day of mixed nuts (10 g of peanuts; 10 g of cashew; 10 g of Brazil nuts) (intervention group, n = 193); or only DICA Br prescription (control group, n = 195). The primary outcome was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol means (in mg/dL) after 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were other lipid biomarkers, glycemic and anthropometric data and diet quality., Results: After adjustment for baseline values, participating study site, time since myocardial infarction and statin treatment regimen (high potency, moderate and low potency/no statins), no significant difference was found between the groups in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (intervention-control difference: 3.48 mg/dL [-3.45 to 10.41], P = 0.32). Both groups improved their overall diet quality at the end of the study without differences between them after 16 weeks (intervention-control difference: 1.05 (-0.9 to 2.99); P = 0.29). Other lipids, glycemic profile and anthropometrics were also not different between study groups at the end of the study., Conclusion: Adding 30 g/day of mixed nuts to the DICA Br for 16 weeks did not change lipid, glycemic and anthropometric features in the post-myocardial infarction setting., Trial Registration: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov website under number NCT03728127 and its World Health Organization Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN) is U1111-1259-8105., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: ARDS is a heterogeneous condition with two subphenotypes identified by different methodologies. Our group similarly identified two ARDS subphenotypes using nine routinely available clinical variables. However, whether these are associated with differential response to treatment has yet to be explored., Research Question: Are there differential responses to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies on 28-day mortality according to subphenotypes in adult patients with ARDS?, Study Design and Methods: We evaluated data from two prior ARDS trials (Higher vs Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressures in Patients With the ARDS [ALVEOLI] and the Alveolar Recruitment in ARDS Trial [ART]) that compared different PEEP strategies. We classified patients into one of two subphenotypes as described previously. We assessed the differential effect of PEEP with a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model for the primary outcome of 28-day mortality., Results: We analyzed data from 1,559 patients with ARDS. Compared with lower PEEP, a higher PEEP strategy resulted in higher 28-day mortality in patients with subphenotype A disease in the ALVEOLI study (OR, 1.61; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.90-2.94) and ART (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.01-2.98), with a probability of harm resulting from higher PEEP in this subphenotype of 94.3% and 97.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. Higher PEEP was not associated with mortality in patients with subphenotype B disease in each trial (OR, 0.95 [95% CrI, 0.51-1.73] and 1.00 [95% CrI, 0.63-1.55], respectively), with probability of benefit of 56.4% and 50.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. These effects were not modified by Pao 2 to Fio 2 ratio, driving pressure, or the severity of illness for the cohorts., Interpretation: We found evidence of differential response to PEEP strategies across two ARDS subphenotypes, suggesting possible harm with a higher PEEP strategy in one subphenotype. These observations may assist with predictive enrichment in future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: W. d. R. L. and D. A. R. are employees of Endpoint Health, Inc. A. S. N. reports receiving personal fees from Dräger unrelated to the submitted work. A. D. is on the steering committee for Alung Technologies. R. O. D. is a scientific advisor for Endpoint Health, Inc., and is a shareholder. None declared (M. T. S., L. B., A. B. C., F. G. Z., I. S. M., D. M. P., L. N. L.)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Critically ill patients are at increased risk of health care-associated infections due to various devices (central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which pose a significant threat to this population. Among several strategies, daily bathing with chlorhexidine digluconate, a water-soluble antiseptic, has been studied as an intervention to decrease the incidence of health care-associated infections in the intensive care unit; however, its ability to reduce all health care-associated infections due to various devices is unclear. We designed the Daily Chlorhexidine Bath for Health Care Associated Infection Prevention (CLEAN-IT) trial to assess whether daily chlorhexidine digluconate bathing reduces the incidence of health care-associated infections in critically ill patients compared with soap and water bathing., Methods: The CLEAN-IT trial is a multicenter, open-label, cluster randomized crossover clinical trial. All adult patients admitted to the participating intensive care units will be included in the trial. Each cluster (intensive care unit) will be randomized to perform either initial chlorhexidine digluconate bathing or soap and water bathing with crossover for a period of 3 to 6 months, depending on the time of each center's entrance to the study, with a 1-month washout period between chlorhexidine digluconate bathing and soap and water bathing transitions. The primary outcome is the incidence of health care-associated infections due to devices. The secondary outcomes are the incidence of each specific health care-associated infection, rates of microbiological cultures positive for multidrug-resistant pathogens, antibiotic use, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit and hospital mortality., Conclusion: The CLEAN-IT trial will be used to study feasible and affordable interventions that might reduce the health care-associated infection burden in critically ill patients.

Background: Cell therapy using adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) shows great potential as a treatment for cardiovascular diseases., Objective: We conducted a systematic review to describe the safety and efficacy of ADSCs in ischemic heart disease., Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS (from inception to March 2024) for clinical studies involving ADSCs in patients with ischemic heart disease. We excluded studies involving patients with other types of heart disease, studies using mesenchymal stem cells derived from other tissues, as well as ongoing studies. Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials, using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria modified by McMaster University and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). We used a narrative synthesis to present the results., Results: Ten studies (comprising 29 publications) met our inclusion criteria, including 8 randomized controlled trials and 2 uncontrolled trials. No severe adverse events associated with ADSC therapy were reported. While most efficacy endpoints did not reach statistical significance, there were reports of improved ischemic area, functional capacity, symptoms, and contractility in patients treated with ADSCs., Conclusions: The findings from our review suggest that ADSC therapy is generally safe for patients with ischemic heart disease. However, further investigation is warranted to confirm its efficacy, particularly with larger clinical trials and in specific conditions where improvements in microcirculation may have a notable impact on clinical outcomes.

Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear., Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia., Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance., Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide., Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Background: Halofuginone (PJS-539) is an oral prolyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor that has a potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus. The safety and efficacy of halofuginone in Covid-19 patients has not been studied., Methods: We conducted a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose ranging, safety and tolerability trial of halofuginone in symptomatic (≤ 7 days), mostly vaccinated, non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive halofuginone 0.5mg, 1mg or placebo orally once daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithmic curve within 10 days after randomization., Results: From September 25, 2021, to February 3, 2022, 153 patients were randomized. The mean decay rate in SARS-CoV-2 viral load log10 within 10 days was -3.75 (95% CI, -4.11; -3.19) in the placebo group, -3.83 (95% CI, -4.40; -2.27) in the halofuginone 0.5mg group and -4.13 (95% CI, -4.69; -3.57) in the halofuginone 1mg group, with no statistically significant difference in between placebo vs. halofuginone 0.5mg (mean difference -0.08; 95% CI -0.82 to 0.66, p = 0.96) and between placebo vs. halofuginone 1mg (mean difference -0.38; 95% CI, -1.11; 0.36, p = 0.41). There was no difference on bleeding episodes or serious adverse events at 28 days., Conclusions: Among non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19 halofuginone treatment was safe and well tolerated but did not decrease SARS-CoV-2 viral load decay rate within 10 days., Competing Interests: S.T is a co-inventor and receives royalties from patents owned by University of California San Diego (UCSD) and is a co-founder and has an equity interest in Oxitope, LLC and its affiliates, Kleanthi Diagnostics, LLC and Covicept Therapeutics, Inc and has a dual appointment at UCSD and Ionis Pharmaceuticals; A.F.C has received contract payments from Nurix Therapeutics, Inc. and has options in Covicept Therapeutics; J.D.E is a cofounder, consultant and shareholder in Covicept Therapeutics (San Diego, CA) and TEGA Therapeutics (La Jolla, CA); P.L.S.M.G. is a cofounder, consultant and shareholder in Covicept Therapeutics (San Diego, CA). All remaining authors: No conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, although some restrictions might apply as stated in the submission., (Copyright: © 2024 Tomazini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The best way to offer non-invasive respiratory support across several aetiologies of acute respiratory failure (ARF) is presently unclear. Both high flow nasal catheter (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) may improve outcomes in critically ill patients by avoiding the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Objective: Describe the details of the protocol and statistical analysis plan designed to test whether HFNC therapy is non-inferior or even superior to NIPPV in patients with ARF due to different aetiologies. Methods: RENOVATE is a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial that is recruiting patients from adult emergency departments, wards and intensive care units (ICUs). It takes advantage of an adaptive Bayesian framework to assess the effectiveness of HFNC therapy versus NIPPV in four subgroups of ARF (hypoxaemic non-immunocompromised, hypoxaemic immunocompromised, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema). The study will report the posterior probabilities of non-inferiority, superiority or futility for the comparison between HFNC therapy and NIPPV. The study assumes neutral priors and the final sample size is not fixed. The final sample size will be determined by a priori determined stopping rules for non-inferiority, superiority and futility for each subgroup or by reaching the maximum of 2000 patients. Outcomes: The primary endpoint is endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days. Secondary outcomes are 28-day and 90-day mortality, and ICU-free and IMV-free days in the first 28 days. Results and conclusions: RENOVATE is designed to provide evidence on whether HFNC therapy improves, compared with NIPPV, important patient-centred outcomes in different aetiologies of ARF. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03643939., Competing Interests: All authors declare that they do not have any potential conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript., (© 2022 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Objectives: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition, and identification of subphenotypes may help in better risk stratification. Our study objective is to identify ARDS subphenotypes using new simpler methodology and readily available clinical variables., Setting: This is a retrospective Cohort Study of ARDS trials. Data from the US ARDSNet trials and from the international ART trial., Participants: 3763 patients from ARDSNet data sets and 1010 patients from the ART data set., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was 60-day or 28-day mortality, depending on what was reported in the original trial. K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify subgroups. Sets of candidate variables were tested to assess their ability to produce different probabilities for mortality in each cluster. Clusters were compared with biomarker data, allowing identification of subphenotypes., Results: Data from 4773 patients were analysed. Two subphenotypes (A and B) resulted in optimal separation in the final model, which included nine routinely collected clinical variables, namely heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, bilirubin, bicarbonate, creatinine, PaO 2 , arterial pH and FiO 2 . Participants in subphenotype B showed increased levels of proinflammatory markers, had consistently higher mortality, lower number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and longer duration of ventilation compared with patients in the subphenotype A., Conclusions: Routinely available clinical data can successfully identify two distinct subphenotypes in adult ARDS patients. This work may facilitate implementation of precision therapy in ARDS clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RK, EVA, LB, JO, DR and ROD are employees of Endpoint Health and ASN reported receiving personal fees from Dräger unrelated to the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Rationale: Evidence from observational studies suggests that driving pressure is strongly associated with pulmonary injury and mortality, regardless of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, tidal volume, or plateau pressure. Therefore, it is possible that targeting driving pressure may improve the safety of ventilation strategies for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the clinical effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy for ARDS has not been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of testing a driving pressure-limited strategy in comparison with a conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients with ARDS and a baseline driving pressure of ≥13 cm H 2 O. Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, nonblinded trial that included 31 patients with ARDS who were on invasive mechanical ventilation and had a driving pressure of ≥13 cm H 2 O. Patients allocated to the driving pressure-limited strategy were ventilated with volume-controlled or pressure-support ventilation modes, with tidal volume titrated to 4-8 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW), aiming at a driving pressure of 10 cm H 2 O, or the lowest possible. Patients in the control group were ventilated according to the ARDSNet (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network) protocol, using a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg PBW, which was allowed to be set down to 4 ml/kg PBW if the plateau pressure was >30 cm H 2 O. The primary endpoint was the driving pressure on Days 1-3. Results: Sixteen patients were randomized to the driving pressure-limited group and 15 were randomized to the conventional strategy group. All patients were considered in analyses. Most of the patients had mild ARDS with a mean arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of 215 (standard deviation [SD] = 95). The baseline driving pressure was 15.0 cm H 2 O (SD = 2.6) in both groups. In comparison with the conventional strategy, driving pressure from the first hour to the third day was 4.6 cm H 2 O lower in the driving pressure-limited group (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 2.8; P  < 0.001). From the first hour up to the third day, tidal volume in the driving pressure-limited strategy group was kept lower than in the control group (mean difference [ml/kg of PBW], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 0.9; P  < 0.001). We did not find statistically significant differences in the incidence of severe acidosis (pH < 7.10) within 7 days (absolute difference -12.1; 95% CI, -41.5 to -17.3) or any clinical secondary endpoint. Conclusions: In patients with ARDS, a trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy using very low tidal volumes versus a conventional ventilation strategy on clinical outcomes is feasible.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02365038).

Importance: Loading doses of atorvastatin did not show reduction on clinical outcomes in the overall population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Statins Evaluation in Coronary Procedures and Revascularization (SECURE-PCI) trial, but a potential benefit was identified in patients who subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objectives: To determine whether periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin are associated with decreased 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS undergoing PCI according to type of ACS and timing of atorvastatin administration before PCI., Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites that enrolled 4191 patients with ACS intended to be treated with PCI between April 18, 2012, and October 06, 2017., Interventions: Patients were randomized to 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin or matching placebo before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. By protocol, all patients (regardless of treatment group) received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE through 30 days, composed by all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Cox regression models adjusting for key baseline characteristics were used to assess the association between atorvastatin and MACE in patients undergoing PCI., Results: From the overall trial population, 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI (650 women [24.0%]; mean [SD] age, 62 [11.3] years). Loading atorvastatin was associated with reduced MACE at 30 days by 28% in the PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI 0.54-0.97; P = .03). Loading dose of atorvastatin was administered less than 12 hours before PCI in 2548 patients (95.3%) (45.1% < 2 hours and 54.3% between 2 and 12 hours). There was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of study drug administration. The treatment effect of loading atorvastatin was more pronounced in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92; P = .02; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.27; P = .43, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin appeared to reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days, most clearly in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This beneficial effect seemed to be preserved and consistent, irrespective of the timing of atorvastatin administration, including within 2 hours before PCI., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Importance: The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain., Objective: To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days., Results: Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, -0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Background: Previous evidence suggests that acute treatment with statins reduce atherosclerotic complications, including periprocedural myocardial infarction, but currently, there are no large, adequately powered studies to define the effects of early, high-dose statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management., Objectives: The main goal of Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization (SECURE-PCI) Trial is to determine whether the early use of a loading dose of 80 mg of atorvastatin before an intended percutaneous coronary intervention followed by an additional dose of 80 mg 24 hours after the procedure will be able to reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days in patients with an ACS., Design: The SECURE-PCI study is a pragmatic, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial planned to enroll around 4,200 patients in 58 different sites in Brazil. The primary outcome is the rate of major cardiovascular events at 30 days defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization., Summary: The SECURE PCI is a large randomized trial testing a strategy of early, high-dose statin in patients with ACS and will provide important information about the acute treatment of this patient population., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain., Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS., Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality., Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Background: The Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) is an international multicenter randomized pragmatic controlled trial with allocation concealment involving 120 intensive care units in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Malaysia, Spain, and Uruguay. The primary objective of ART is to determine whether maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration, adjusted according to the static compliance of the respiratory system (ART strategy), is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy)., Objective: To describe the data management process and statistical analysis plan., Methods: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the trial executive committee and reviewed and approved by the trial steering committee. We provide an overview of the trial design with a special focus on describing the primary (28-day survival) and secondary outcomes. We describe our data management process, data monitoring committee, interim analyses, and sample size calculation. We describe our planned statistical analyses for primary and secondary outcomes as well as pre-specified subgroup analyses. We also provide details for presenting results, including mock tables for baseline characteristics, adherence to the protocol and effect on clinical outcomes., Conclusion: According to best trial practice, we report our statistical analysis plan and data management plan prior to locking the database and beginning analyses. We anticipate that this document will prevent analysis bias and enhance the utility of the reported results., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01374022.

Background: Early termination of clinical trials due to low recruitment represents an understudied challenge for clinical research. We aimed to describe characteristics of cardiovascular trials terminated because of low recruitment and identify the major predictors of such early termination., Methods: We reviewed all cardiovascular clinical trials (7,042 studies) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from February 29, 2000, to January 17, 2013, and assessed information about trials that were completed and those that were terminated early. Logistic regression models were developed to identify independent predictors of early termination due to low recruitment., Results: Our search strategy identified 6,279 cardiovascular clinical trials, of which 684 (10.9%) were terminated prematurely. Of these halted trials, the main reason for termination was lower than expected recruitment (278 trials; 53.6%). When comparing trials that terminated early because of low recruitment with those that were completed, we found that studies funded by the National Institutes of Health or other US federal agencies (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.89), studies of behavior/diet intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.65), and single-arm design studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.78) were associated with a lower risk of early termination. University/hospital-funded (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10-2.10) and mixed-source-funded studies (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.52-3.01) were associated with a higher likelihood of early termination due to lower than expected recruitment rates., Conclusions: Low recruitment represents the main cause of early termination of cardiovascular clinical trials. Funding source, type of intervention, and study design are factors associated with early termination due to low recruitment and might be good targets for improving enrollment into cardiovascular clinical trials., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tight control of blood glucose reduces cardiovascular events and total mortality is conflicting. To summarize clinical effects of tight versus conventional glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Knowledge with no limits of language and time. Further trials were searched from the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled comparing different levels of blood glucose control intensity in type 2 diabetic patients. Two independent reviewers extracted data of eligible studies using standard case report forms. We investigated total mortality, cardiovascular and microvascular events, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. We used random-effects models to obtain relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included 6 trials involving 27,654 patients. There was no significant effect of tight blood glucose control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.90-1.17) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Tight glucose control reduced the risk for nonfatal MI (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.95), although had no effect on the incidence of nonfatal stroke (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88-1.17). For microvascular events, tight glucose control reduced the risk progression of retinopathy (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.91), incidence of peripheral neuropathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99), and progression of nephropathy (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.80), but had not significant effect on the incidence of nephropathy (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.42-1.14). The risk of severe hypoglycemia increased with tight glucose control (RR 2.39; 95% CI 1.79-3.18). Tight blood glucose control reduces the risk for some macrovascular and microvascular events, without effect on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Tight glucose control increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)