Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID-19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

International audienceAbstract Background Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. Methods Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. Results Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49–69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI − 0.1% [− 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (− 3.2% [− 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. Conclusion This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 )

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used