Search

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established., Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2., Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication., Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar., Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Few studies have documented relationships between endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasonography (DUS), post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), and quality of life (QOL). The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial randomized 692 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to receive anticoagulation or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT). Compression DUS was obtained at baseline, 1 month and 12 months. Reflux DUS was obtained at 12 months in a subset of 126 patients. Clinical outcomes were collected over 24 months. At 1 month, patients who received PCDT had less residual thrombus compared to Control patients, evidenced by non-compressible common femoral vein (CFV) (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), femoral vein (51% vs 70%, p < 0.0001), and popliteal vein (61% vs 74%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, in the ultrasound substudy, valvular reflux prevalence was similar between groups (85% vs 91%, p = 0.35). CFV non-compressibility at 1 month was associated with higher rates of any PTS (61% vs 46%, p < 0.001), a higher incidence of moderate-or-severe PTS (30% vs 19%, p = 0.003), and worse QOL (difference 8.2 VEINES-QOL (VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life) points; p = 0.004) at 24 months. Valvular reflux at 12 months was associated with moderate-or-severe PTS at 24 months (30% vs 0%, p = 0.01). In summary, PCDT results in less residual thrombus but does not reduce venous valvular reflux. CFV non-compressibility at 1 month is associated with more PTS, more severe PTS, and worse QOL at 24 months. Valvular reflux may predispose to moderate-or-severe PTS. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00790335. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared.Methods and Results: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy.Conclusions: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: The ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) previously reported that pharmacomechanical catheter–directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis. In the current analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in ATTRACT patients with iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. Methods: Within a large multicenter randomized trial, 391 patients with acute deep vein thrombosis involving the iliac or common femoral veins were randomized to PCDT with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone (No-PCDT) and were followed for 24 months to compare short-term and long-term outcomes. Results: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no difference in the occurrence of PTS (Villalta scale ≥5 or ulcer: 49% PCDT versus 51% No-PCDT; risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.15; P =0.59). PCDT led to reduced PTS severity as shown by lower mean Villalta and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (P <0.01 for comparisons at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months), and fewer patients with moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥10 or ulcer: 18% versus 28%; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.94; P =0.021) or severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥15 or ulcer: 8.7% versus 15%; risk ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32–1.01; P =0.048; and Venous Clinical Severity Score ≥8: 6.6% versus 14%; risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.87; P =0.013). From baseline, PCDT led to greater reduction in leg pain and swelling (P <0.01 for comparisons at 10 and 30 days) and greater improvement in venous disease–specific quality of life (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life unit difference 5.6 through 24 months, P =0.029), but no difference in generic quality of life (P >0.2 for comparisons of SF-36 mental and physical component summary scores through 24 months). In patients having PCDT versus No-PCDT, major bleeding within 10 days occurred in 1.5% versus 0.5% (P =0.32), and recurrent venous thromboembolism over 24 months was observed in 13% versus 9.2% (P =0.21). Conclusions: In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, PCDT did not influence the occurrence of PTS or recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, PCDT significantly reduced early leg symptoms and, over 24 months, reduced PTS severity scores, reduced the proportion of patients who developed moderate-or-severe PTS, and resulted in greater improvement in venous disease–specific quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]