Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Current Challenges, and Ways Forward

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects >1.2 million Americans annually. Although the clinical outcomes and economic burdens of VTE have been well described, the impact of VTE on patients' health status has yet to be summarized. This systematic review summarizes how patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used in VTE to date. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE was queried for literature published through March 2023 using PROMs in a population of patients with VTE. Studies were excluded if the reference was an editorial, review, or case report, or if the study included patients with conditions other than VTE. Qualitative analyses were performed. After screening and exclusion, 136 references were identified; 5 described PROM development, 20 focused on PROM validation, and 111 used PROMs in outcomes research. The most used generic PROMs were the 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey and EuroQol 5‐dimensional questionnaire, and the most common disease‐specific PROMs were the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study–Quality of Life/Symptoms and the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life Questionnaire. PROMs were used to quantify the changes in health status after diagnosis, characterize the trajectory of subsequent improvement, and identify drivers of continued impairments in health status like postthrombotic syndrome and postpulmonary embolism syndrome. PROMs were also used to investigate the impact of novel treatment modalities on quality of life. Conclusions This review demonstrates the many benefits of PROM use, including quantifying changes in health status with treatment, capturing patients' experiences with the treatment itself, and identifying complications of VTE. Incorporating PROMs into VTE care will be an essential component of evaluating the effectiveness of novel therapies and should lead to improved shared decision‐making for patients with VTE

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism

Background The optimal treatment strategy of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) (especially those with intermediate risk) continues to evolve and remains controversial. Objectives The study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation (AC) alone, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), and systemic thrombolysis (ST) in patients with acute PE. Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials or observational studies which compared outcomes of AC alone, CDT, and ST in acute PE. Efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes were major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results We identified 45 studies (17 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective nonrandomized trials, and 26 retrospective observational trials), which included 81,705 patients. When compared with AC alone, CDT had lower mortality (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.39-0.80) but higher major bleeding (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.10-3.08) and numerically higher ICH (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.75-3.04). ST was associated with no difference in mortality but higher major bleeding (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.38-3.38) and ICH (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.14-4.48) when compared with AC alone. The risk of mortality (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.46-2.89) and ICH (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.13-1.99) was higher with ST when compared with CDT. Findings were similar when analysis was restricted to trials of intermediate risk PE. Conclusions In patients with acute PE, when compared with AC alone, CDT was associated with a lower mortality but higher risk of bleeding. CDT had an enhanced safety profile when compared with ST

Authors' Self-Declared Financial Conflicts of Interest Do Not Impact the Results of Major Cardiovascular Trials

ObjectivesThis study assessed whether the results of major, potentially practice-altering cardiovascular trials were influenced by the authors' self-declared financial conflicts of interest (FCOI). Secondary objectives included assessment of trial outcomes by source of funding, by FCOI subtype, and by trial endpoints.BackgroundFinancial conflicts of interest, ubiquitous in cardiovascular medicine because of significant investigator-industry collaborations, potentially can influence trial outcomes.MethodsA MEDLINE search was performed using the MeSH term cardiovascular disease limited to randomized controlled trials and clinical trials published from January 1, 2000, through April 15, 2008, in 3 high-impact journals. Two reviewers independently abstracted data from the published article. Chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, and multivariate logistic regression were used to assess the associations between FCOI and study characteristics and between FCOI and trial outcomes.ResultsOf the 550 articles reviewed, 51.1% satisfied FCOI criteria, including at least one of the following: stock ownership, employee, speaker's bureau, and consultant). Of the 538 articles providing sponsorship information, 34.6% reported funding solely by nonprofit organizations, 48.3% reported funding solely by industry, and 17.1% reported funding by a combination. Prevalence of FCOI significantly increased with level of industry funding: 21.5% (none), 50.0% (shared), 75.0% (industry solely, n = 281, p < 0.0001). However, no differences in reporting of favorable results were detected when articles were analyzed by self-declared FCOI (60.5% vs. 59.5% in those with and without, odds ratio: 1.04, p = 0.81). This result was upheld in multivariate analysis.ConclusionsAuthors' self-declared FCOI and source of funding do not seem to impact outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials

sj-docx-1-jet-10.1177_15266028231212133 – Supplemental material for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Infrapopliteal Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Primary Patency and Binary Restenosis Rates

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jet-10.1177_15266028231212133 for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Infrapopliteal Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Primary Patency and Binary Restenosis Rates by Daniel J. Snyder, Robert S. Zilinyi, Sonal Pruthi, Sareena George, Daniela Tirziu, Alexandra Lansky, Ari J. Mintz, Sanjum S. Sethi and Sahil A. Parikh in Journal of Endovascular Therapy</p

Risk Factor Control for Coronary Artery Disease Secondary Prevention in Large Randomized Trials

ObjectivesThis study evaluated data from 3 federally funded trials that focused on optimal medical therapy to determine if formalized attempts at risk factor control within clinical trials are effective in achieving guideline-driven treatment goals for diabetic patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).BackgroundDespite clear evidence of benefit for CAD secondary prevention, the level of risk factor control in clinical practice has been disappointing.MethodsWe obtained data from the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) diabetes subgroup, (n = 766 of 2,287), the BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes) trial (n = 2,368), and the FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial (n = 1,900) to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving guideline-based, protocol-driven treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking cessation, and hemoglobin A1c. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of diabetic CAD patients meeting all 4 pre-specified targets at 1 year after enrollment.ResultsThe pooled data include 5,034 diabetic patients. The percentages of patients achieving the 1-year low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets compared with baseline increased from 55% to 77% in COURAGE, from 59% to 75% in BARI 2D, and from 34% to 42% in FREEDOM. Although similar improved trends were seen for systolic blood pressure, glycemic control, and smoking cessation, only 18% of the COURAGE diabetes subgroup, 23% of BARI 2D patients, and 8% of FREEDOM patients met all 4 pre-specified treatment targets at 1 year of follow-up.ConclusionsA significant proportion of diabetic CAD patients fail to achieve pre-specified targets for 4 major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in clinical trials. We conclude that fundamentally new thinking is needed to explore approaches to achieve optimal secondary prevention treatment goals. (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation; NCT00007657) (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes [BARI 2D]; NCT00006305) (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes [FREEDOM]; NCT00086450