Search

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. Methods We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. Results Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). Conclusions In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04373460.

Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels associated with reduced hospitalization risk remain undefined. Our outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), placebo-controlled trial observed SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels decreasing 22-fold from matched donor units into post-transfusion seronegative recipients. Unvaccinated recipients were jointly stratified by a) early or late transfusion (≤ 5 or >5 days from symptom onset) and b) high or low post-transfusion SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels (< or ≥ geometric mean). Early treatment with high post-transfusion antibody levels reduced hospitalization risk-0/102 (0%) compared to all other CCP recipients-17/370 (4.6%; Fisher exact p=0.03) and to all control plasma recipients-35/461 (7.6%; Fisher exact p=0.001). A similar donor upper/lower antibody level and early late transfusion stratified analyses indicated significant hospital risk reduction. Pre-transfusion nasal viral loads were similar in CCP and control recipients regardless of hospitalization outcome. Therapeutic CCP should comprise the upper 30% of donor antibody levels to provide effective outpatient use for immunocompromised and immunocompetent outpatients.

Background Vitamin D supplementation may prevent falls in older persons, but evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of dosage differences. Objective To compare the effects of 4 doses of vitamin D3 supplements on falls. Design 2-stage Bayesian, response-adaptive, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02166333). Setting 2 community-based research units. Participants 688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25-(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L. Intervention 200 (control), 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU of vitamin D3 per day. During the dose-finding stage, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 vitamin D3 doses, and the best noncontrol dose for preventing falls was determined. After dose finding, participants previously assigned to receive noncontrol doses received the best dose, and new enrollees were randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d or the best dose. Measurements Time to first fall or death over 2 years (primary outcome). Results During the dose-finding stage, the primary outcome rates were higher for the 2000- and 4000-IU/d doses than for the 1000-IU/d dose, which was selected as the best dose (posterior probability of being best, 0.90). In the confirmatory stage, event rates were not significantly different between participants with experience receiving the best dose (events and observation time limited to the period they were receiving 1000 IU/d; n = 308) and those randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d (n = 339) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15]; P = 0.54). Analysis of falls with adverse outcomes suggested greater risk in the experience-with-best-dose group versus the 200-IU/d group (serious fall: HR, 1.87 [CI, 1.03 to 3.41]; fall with hospitalization: HR, 2.48 [CI, 1.13 to 5.46]). Limitations The control group received 200 IU of vitamin D3 per day, not a placebo. Dose finding ended before the prespecified thresholds for dose suspension and dose selection were reached. Conclusion In older persons with elevated fall risk and low serum 25-(OH)D levels, vitamin D3 supplementation at doses of 1000 IU/d or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/d. Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D3 doses of 1000 IU/d or higher. Primary funding source National Institute on Aging.

BACKGROUNDThe efficacy of polyclonal high titer convalescent plasma to prevent serious complications of COVID-19 in outpatients with recent onset of illness is uncertain.METHODSThis multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 high titer convalescent plasma to placebo control plasma in symptomatic adults ≥18 years positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of risk factors for disease progression or vaccine status. Participants with symptom onset within 8 days were enrolled, then transfused within the subsequent day. The measured primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization within 28 days of plasma transfusion. The enrollment period was June 3, 2020 to October 1, 2021.RESULTSA total of 1225 participants were randomized and 1181 transfused. In the pre-specified modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded those not transfused, the primary endpoint occurred in 37 of 589 (6.3%) who received placebo control plasma and in 17 of 592 (2.9%) participants who received convalescent plasma (relative risk, 0.46; one-sided 95% upper bound confidence interval 0.733; P=0.004) corresponding to a 54% risk reduction. Examination with a model adjusting for covariates related to the outcome did not change the conclusions.CONCLUSIONEarly administration of high titer SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma reduced outpatient hospitalizations by more than 50%. High titer convalescent plasma is an effective early outpatient COVID-19 treatment with the advantages of low cost, wide availability, and rapid resilience to variant emergence from viral genetic drift in the face of a changing pandemic.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.

Clinical trials investigating cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) among patients with cardiovascular and renal disease rarely recruit patients with renal impairment, despite associations with increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We investigated the risk of MACE associated with the use of DPP-4i among these high-risk patients. Using a new-user, retrospective, cohort design, we analyzed 2010–2015 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters for patients with diabetes, comorbid with cardiovascular disease and/or renal impairment. We compared time to first MACE for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and versus metformin. Of 113,296 individuals, 9146 (8.07%) were new DPP-4i users, 17,481 (15.43%) were new sulfonylurea users, and 88,596 (78.20%) were new metformin users. Exposure groups were not mutually exclusive. DPP-4i was associated with lower risk for MACE than sulfonylurea (aHR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74, 0.93) and similar risk for MACE to metformin (aHR 1.07; 95% CI [1.04, 1.16]). DPP-4i use was associated with lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin. This association was most evident in the first year of therapy, suggesting that DPP-4i is a safer choice than sulfonylurea for diabetes treatment initiation in high-risk patients.

Background/aim:Cost-efficient methods are essential for successful participant recruitment in clinical trials. Patient portal messages are an emerging means of recruiting potentially eligible patients into trials. We assessed the response rate and complaint rate from direct-to-patient, targeted recruitment through patient portals of an electronic medical record for a clinical trial, and compared response rates by differences in message content.Methods:The Study to Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D in You (STURDY) trial is a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, community-based study of vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older adults conducted at Johns Hopkins. Potential participants were identified using the Epic electronic medical record at the Johns Hopkins Health System based on age (≥70 years), ZIP code (30-mile radius of study site), and prior activation of a patient portal account. We prepared a shorter message and a longer message. Both had basic information about study participation, but the longer message also contained information about the significance of the study and a personal invitation from the STURDY principal investigator. The Hopkins Institutional Review Board did not require prior consent from the patient or their providers. We calculated the response rate and tracked the number of complaints and requests for removal from future messages. We also determined response rate according to message content.Results:Of the 5.5 million individuals receiving care at the Johns Hopkins Health System, a sample of 6896 met our inclusion criteria and were sent one patient portal recruitment message between 6 April 2017 and 3 August 2017. Assessment of enrollment by this method ended on 1 December 2017. There were 116 patients who expressed interest in the study (response rate: 1.7%). Twelve (0.2%) recipients were randomized. There were two complaints (0.03%) and one request to unsubscribe from future recruitment messages (0.01%). Response rate was higher with the longer message than the shorter message (2.1% vs 1.2%; p = 0.005).Conclusion:Patient portal messages inviting seniors to participate in a randomized controlled trial resulted in a response rate similar to commercial email marketing and resulted in very few complaints or opt-out requests. Furthermore, a longer message with more content enhanced response rate. Recruitment through patient portals might be an effective strategy to enroll trial participants.

BackgroundUnderstanding the factors associated with disease severity and mortality in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is imperative to effectively triage patients. We performed a systematic review to determine the demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological factors associated with severity and mortality in COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and WHO database for English language articles from inception until May 8, 2020. We included Observational studies with direct comparison of clinical characteristics between a) patients who died and those who survived or b) patients with severe disease and those without severe disease. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently.ResultsAmong 15680 articles from the literature search, 109 articles were included in the analysis. The risk of mortality was higher in patients with increasing age, male gender (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.23–1.71), dyspnea (RR 2.55, 95%CI 1.88–2.46), diabetes (RR 1.59, 95%CI 1.41–1.78), hypertension (RR 1.90, 95%CI 1.69–2.15). Congestive heart failure (OR 4.76, 95%CI 1.34–16.97), hilar lymphadenopathy (OR 8.34, 95%CI 2.57–27.08), bilateral lung involvement (OR 4.86, 95%CI 3.19–7.39) and reticular pattern (OR 5.54, 95%CI 1.24–24.67) were associated with severe disease. Clinically relevant cut-offs for leukocytosis(>10.0 ×109/L), lymphopenia(< 1.1 ×109/L), elevated C-reactive protein(>100mg/L), LDH(>250U/L) and D-dimer(>1mg/L) had higher odds of severe disease and greater risk of mortality.ConclusionKnowledge of the factors associated of disease severity and mortality identified in our study may assist in clinical decision-making and critical-care resource allocation for patients with COVID-19.Primary Funding SourceNone.

Purpose In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Draft Guidance on investigating cardiovascular risk with oral diabetic drugs, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i). In 2014, underpowered, post hoc analyses of clinical trials suggested an increased risk of heart failure with the use of these products. As such, we assessed disproportionate reporting of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among reports for DPP-4i submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2006 to 2015. Methods We assessed the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) and its lower bound (EB05) of the relative reporting ratio for MACE among DPP-4i reports in the full FAERS database and in a subset of reports limited to cardiovascular and diabetic drugs. We then compared the EB05 in these 2 analyses and calculated the percent positive agreement for signals of disproportional reporting (SDRs) involving MACE. Results Of 180.3 million adverse event reports, 13.4 million were for diabetic and cardiovascular drugs. In the cardiovascular subset, there was an SDR for heart failure with linagliptin (EB05 = 2782.47) and saxagliptin (EB05 = 2.40), myocardial infarction with alogliptin (EB05 = 290.11), and cerebral infarction with sitagliptin (EB05 = 2.80). Of the 14 MACE, 8 had a percent positive agreement ≥50% for an SDR in both analyses. Overall, the cardiovascular subset elicited 11 more SDRs for DPP-4i than the full dataset. Conclusions Postmarketing surveillance of DPP-4i through FAERS suggest increased reporting of MACE, supporting the current FDA warning of heart failure risk. This suggests the need for additional longitudinal, observational research into the association of DPP-4i and other MACE.

Background Understanding the factors associated with disease severity and mortality in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is imperative to effectively triage patients. We performed a systematic review to determine the demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological factors associated with severity and mortality in COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and WHO database for English language articles from inception until May 8, 2020. We included Observational studies with direct comparison of clinical characteristics between a) patients who died and those who survived or b) patients with severe disease and those without severe disease. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. Results Among 15680 articles from the literature search, 109 articles were included in the analysis. The risk of mortality was higher in patients with increasing age, male gender (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.23–1.71), dyspnea (RR 2.55, 95%CI 1.88–2.46), diabetes (RR 1.59, 95%CI 1.41–1.78), hypertension (RR 1.90, 95%CI 1.69–2.15). Congestive heart failure (OR 4.76, 95%CI 1.34–16.97), hilar lymphadenopathy (OR 8.34, 95%CI 2.57–27.08), bilateral lung involvement (OR 4.86, 95%CI 3.19–7.39) and reticular pattern (OR 5.54, 95%CI 1.24–24.67) were associated with severe disease. Clinically relevant cut-offs for leukocytosis(>10.0 x109/L), lymphopenia(< 1.1 x109/L), elevated C-reactive protein(>100mg/L), LDH(>250U/L) and D-dimer(>1mg/L) had higher odds of severe disease and greater risk of mortality. Conclusion Knowledge of the factors associated of disease severity and mortality identified in our study may assist in clinical decision-making and critical-care resource allocation for patients with COVID-19.

Introduction Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disabling, common cause of dementia, and agitation is one of the most common and distressing symptoms for patients with AD. Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (S-CitAD) tests a novel, clinically derived therapeutic approach to treat agitation in patients with AD. Methods S-CitAD is a NIH-funded, investigator-initiated, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Participants receive a structured psychosocial intervention (PSI) as standard of care. Participants without sufficient response to PSI are randomized to receive 15 mg escitalopram/day or a matching placebo in addition to PSI. Primary outcome is the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC). Discussion S-CitAD will provide information about a practical, immediately available approach to treating agitation in patients with AD. S-CitAD may become a model of how to evaluate and predict treatment response in patients with AD and agitation as a neuropsychiatric symptom (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03108846).

Importance Results of clinical trials suggest that canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor for treating type 2 diabetes, may be associated with lower extremity amputation. Objective To quantify the association between the use of oral medication for type 2 diabetes and 5 outcomes (lower extremity amputation, peripheral arterial disease, critical limb ischemia, osteomyelitis, and ulcer). Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data on new users between September 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015. The study focused on 2.0 million commercially insured individuals and used propensity score weighting to balance baseline differences among groups. Sensitivity analyses varied statistical models, assessed the effect of combining dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists as a single referent group, adjusted for baseline use of older oral agents, and included people with baseline amputation. Exposures New use of SGLT-2 inhibitors alone, DPP-4 inhibitors alone, GLP-1 agonists alone, or other antidiabetic agents (sulfonylurea, metformin hydrochloride, or thiazolidinediones). Main Outcomes and Measures Foot and leg amputation, defined by validatedInternational Classification of Diseases, Ninth RevisionandCurrent Procedural Terminologycodes. Results Among 2.0 million potentially eligible individuals, a total of 953 906 (516 046 women and 437 860 men; mean [SD] age, 51.8 [10.9] years) were included in the final analyses, including 39 869 new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors (4.2%), 105 023 new users of DPP-4 inhibitors (11.0%), and 39 120 new users of GLP-1 agonists (4.1%). The median observation time ranged from 99 days for new users of GLP-1 agonists to 127 days for those using metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones, while the crude incident rates ranged from 4.90 per 10 000 person-years for those using metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones to 10.53 per 10 000 person-years for new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. After propensity score weighting and adjustment for demographics, severity of diabetes, comorbidities, and medications, there was a nonstatistically significant increased risk of amputation associated with new use of SGLT-2 inhibitors compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.67) and GLP-1 agonists (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.64-3.36). New use of SGLT-2 inhibitors was statistically significantly associated with amputation compared with sulfonylureas, metformin, or thiazolidinediones (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.19-3.77). These results persisted in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance Use of SGLT-2 inhibitors may be associated with increased risk of amputation compared with some oral treatments for type 2 diabetes. Further observational studies are needed with extended follow-up and larger sample sizes.

In August 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made the controversial decision to approve flibanserin (Addyi®) for women experiencing hypoactive sexual desire disorder. A number of factors contributed to disagreements regarding the FDA's decision, including the product's two prior failed FDA reviews, the unmet need of women with this disorder, extensive advocacy and politicization surrounding the product's relevance to women and sexual health, the potential for widespread off-label use, and the product's tenuous risk/benefit profile. Despite that, attention now shifts to maximizing the safe use of the product, including the optimal means to avoid numerous drug-drug interactions as well as the concomitant use of alcohol, both of which potentiate the risks of dizziness, hypotension, and syncope. Although the FDA has implemented a comprehensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to maximize the product's safe use, patients, clinicians, and regulators must exhibit heightened vigilance early in the product's post-market life.