Search

BackgroundEarly administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause.ResultsA total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, -6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsThe administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767.).

BackgroundIron from haemolysed blood is implicated in secondary injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to assess the safety of the iron chelator deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and to establish whether the drug merits investigation in a phase 3 trial.MethodsWe did a multicentre, futility-design, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial at 40 hospitals in Canada and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with primary, spontaneous, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive deferoxamine mesylate (32 mg/kg per day) or placebo (saline) infusions for 3 consecutive days within 24 h of haemorrhage onset. Randomisation was done via a web-based trial-management system centrally in real time, and treatment allocation was concealed from both participants and investigators. The primary outcome was good clinical outcome, which was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at day 90. We did a futility analysis: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants with a good clinical outcome was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, then to move to a phase 3 efficacy trial would be futile. Primary outcome and safety data were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising only participants in whom the study infusions were initiated. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175225, and is completed.FindingsWe recruited 294 participants between Nov 23, 2014, and Nov 10, 2017. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of 144 patients assigned to the deferoxamine mesylate group and 147 assigned to the placebo group. At day 90, among patients with available data for the primary outcome, 48 (34%) of 140 participants in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 47 (33%) of 143 patients in the placebo group, had modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0·6% [90% upper confidence bound 6·8%]). By day 90, 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) of 144 patients in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 78 serious adverse events were reported in 49 (33%) of 147 patients in the placebo group. Ten (7%) participants in the deferoxamine mesylate and 11 (7%) in the placebo group died. None of the deaths were judged to be treatment related.InterpretationDeferoxamine mesylate was safe. However, the primary result showed that further study of the efficacy of deferoxamine mesylate with anticipation that the drug would significantly improve the chance of good clinical outcome (ie, mRS score of 0-2) at day 90 would be futile.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Background and purposeCollateral flow can determine ischemic core and tissue at risk. Using the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial data, we explored the relationship between computed tomography angiogram (CTA) collateral status and CT perfusion (CTP) parameters.MethodsBaseline CTA collaterals were trichotomized as good, intermediate, and poor, and CTP studies were analyzed to quantify ischemic core, tissue at risk, and mismatch ratios. Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman tests were used to measure the strength of association and correlation between CTA collaterals and CTP parameters.ResultsA total of 95 patients had diagnostic CTP studies in the IMS III trial. Of these, 53 patients had M1/M2 middle cerebral artery±intracranial internal carotid artery occlusion, where baseline CTA collateral grading was performed. CTA collaterals were associated with smaller CTP measured ischemic core volume (P=0.0078) and higher mismatch (P=0.0004). There was moderate negative correlation between collaterals and core (rs=-0.45; 95% confidence interval, -0.64 to -0.20) and moderate positive correlation between collaterals and mismatch (rs=0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.71).ConclusionBetter collaterals were associated with smaller ischemic core and higher mismatch in the IMS III trial. Collateral assessment and perfusion imaging identify the same biological construct about ischemic tissue sustenance.

PurposeTo use baseline computed tomographic (CT) angiography to analyze imaging and clinical end points in an Interventional Management of Stroke III cohort to identify patients who would benefit from endovascular stroke therapy.Materials and methodsThe primary clinical end point was 90-day dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Secondary end points were 90-day mRS score distribution and 24-hour recanalization. Prespecified subgroup was baseline proximal occlusions (internal carotid, M1, or basilar arteries). Exploratory analyses were subsets with any occlusion and specific sites of occlusion (two-sided α = .01).ResultsOf 656 subjects, 306 (47%) underwent baseline CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography. Of 306, 282 (92%) had arterial occlusions. At baseline CT angiography, proximal occlusions (n = 220) demonstrated no difference in primary outcome (41.3% [62 of 150] endovascular vs 38% [27 of 70] intravenous [IV] tissue-plasminogen activator [tPA]; relative risk, 1.07 [99% confidence interval: 0.67, 1.70]; P = .70); however, 24-hour recanalization rate was higher for endovascular treatment (n = 167; 84.3% [97 of 115] endovascular vs 56% [29 of 52] IV tPA; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analysis for any occlusion at baseline CT angiography did not demonstrate significant differences between endovascular and IV tPA arms for primary outcome (44.7% [85 of 190] vs 38% [35 of 92], P = .29), although ordinal shift analysis of full mRS distribution demonstrated a trend toward more favorable outcome (P = .011). Carotid T- or L-type occlusion (terminal internal carotid artery [ICA] with M1 middle cerebral artery and/or A1 anterior cerebral artery involvement) or tandem (extracranial or intracranial) ICA and M1 occlusion subgroup also showed a trend favoring endovascular treatment over IV tPA alone for primary outcome (26% [12 of 46] vs 4% [one of 23], P = .047).ConclusionSignificant differences were identified between treatment arms for 24-hour recanalization in proximal occlusions; carotid T- or L-type and tandem ICA and M1 occlusions showed greater recanalization and a trend toward better outcome with endovascular treatment. Vascular imaging should be mandated in future endovascular trials to identify such occlusions. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

BackgroundThe IMS III trial did not show a clinical benefit of endovascular treatment compared with intravenous alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) alone for moderate or severe ischaemic strokes. Late reperfusion of tissue that was no longer salvageable could be one explanation, as suggested by previous exploratory studies that showed an association between time to reperfusion and good clinical outcome. We sought to validate this association in a preplanned analysis of data from the IMS III trial.MethodsWe used data for patients with complete proximal arterial occlusions in the anterior circulation who received endovascular treatment and achieved angiographic reperfusion (score on Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale of grade 2-3) during the endovascular procedure (within 7 h of symptom onset). We used logistic regression to model good clinical outcome (defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months) as a function of the time to reperfusion. We prespecified variables to be considered for adjustment, including age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, sex, and baseline blood glucose concentration.FindingsOf 240 patients who were otherwise eligible for inclusion in our analysis, 182 (76%) achieved angiographic reperfusion. Mean time from symptom onset to reperfusion (ie, procedure end) was 325 min (SD 52). Increased time to reperfusion was associated with a decreased likelihood of good clinical outcome (unadjusted relative risk for every 30-min delay 0·85 [95% CI 0·77-0·94]; adjusted relative risk 0·88 [0·80-0·98]).InterpretationDelays in time to angiographic reperfusion lead to a decreased likelihood of good clinical outcome in patients after moderate to severe stroke. Rapid reperfusion could be crucial for the success of future acute endovascular trials.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Background and purposeEndovascular strategies provide unique opportunity to correlate angiographic measures of collateral circulation at the time of endovascular therapy. We conducted systematic analyses of collaterals at conventional angiography on recanalization, reperfusion, and clinical outcomes in the endovascular treatment arm of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial.MethodsProspective evaluation of angiographic collaterals was conducted via central review of subjects treated with endovascular therapy in IMS III (n=331). Collateral grade before endovascular therapy was assessed with the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology/Society of Interventional Radiology scale, blinded to all other data. Statistical analyses investigated the association between collaterals with baseline clinical variables, angiographic measures of recanalization, reperfusion and clinical outcomes.ResultsAdequate views of collateral circulation to the ischemic territory were available in 276 of 331 (83%) subjects. Collateral grade was strongly related to both recanalization of the occluded arterial segment (P=0.0016) and downstream reperfusion (P

Background and Aims: Gastrointestinal manifestations in patients with COVID-19 are common but the role of endoscopy in this patient population remains unclear. We investigated the need for endoscopic procedures, their findings, and impact on patient care in a systematic and geographically diverse sample of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.Methods: As part of the North American Alliance for the Study of Digestive Manifestations of COVID-19, we identified consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 36 medical centers in the USA and Canada. We performed a secondary analysis of patients who underwent endoscopy, collecting information on endoscopic indications, findings, interventions, staffing, procedure location, anesthesia utilization, and adverse events.Results: Data were collected on 1992 patients; 24 (1.2%) underwent 27 endoscopic procedures (18 upper endoscopies, 7 colonoscopies, 2 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies). The most common indications were: gastrointestinal bleeding (13) and enteral access (6). The most common findings were erosive or inflammatory changes. Ten patients underwent an endoscopic intervention for hemostatic therapy (2), enteral access (6), or biliary obstruction (2). Half of cases employed anesthesiology support; no sedation-related adverse events were reported. One-third of cases were performed in the intensive care setting and one quarter in the endoscopy unit.Conclusions: In this large, systematic, geographically diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in North America, very few patients underwent endoscopy despite a high prevalence of gastrointestinal manifestations. Almost all endoscopic findings and interventions were thought related to critical illness rather than direct viral injury. This systematic assessment of endoscopic necessity and outcomes may help guide resource allocation in the event of ongoing and future surges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The benefits and risks of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) drugs in survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are unclear. Observational studies suggest an association between statin use and increased risk of lobar ICH, particularly in patients with apolipoprotein-E (APOE) ε2 and ε4 genotypes. There are no randomized controlled trials addressing the effects of statins after ICH leading to uncertainty as to whether statins should be used in patients with lobar ICH who are at high risk for ICH recurrence. The SATURN trial aims to evaluate the effects of continuation versus discontinuation of statin on the risk of ICH recurrence and ischemic major adverse cerebro-cardio-vascular events (MACCEs) in patients with lobar ICH. Secondary aims include the assessment of whether the APOE genotype modifies the effects of statins on ICH recurrence, functional and cognitive outcomes, and quality of life. Methods: The SATURN trial is a multi-center, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, open-label, phase III clinical trial with blinded end-point assessment. A planned total of 1,456 patients with lobar ICH will be recruited from 140 sites in the USA, Canada, and Spain. Patients presenting within 7 days of a spontaneous lobar ICH that occurred while taking a statin will be randomized (1:1) to continuation (control) versus discontinuation (intervention) of the same statin drug and dose that they were using at ICH onset. The primary outcome is the time to recurrent symptomatic ICH within a 2-year follow-up period. The primary safety outcome is the occurrence of ischemic MACCE. Conclusion: The results will help to determine the best strategy for statin use in survivors of lobar ICH and may help to identify if there is a subset of patients who would benefit from or be harmed by statins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP.Methods/design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked.Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough.Trial Registration: NCT02476279, registered June 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]