Dataset Information

Continuation versus discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a prospective, randomised, open-label trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biological considerations suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors might influence the severity of COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether continuing versus discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) affects outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

Methods

The REPLACE COVID trial was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial done at 20 large referral hospitals in seven countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and were receiving a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor before admission. Individuals with contraindications to continuation or discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to continuation or discontinuation of their renin-angiotensin system inhibitor using permuted block randomisation, with allocation concealed using a secure web-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was a global rank score in which participants were ranked across four hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, time on renal replacement or vasopressor therapy, and multiorgan dysfunction during the hospitalisation. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The REPLACE COVID trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338009.

Findings

Between March 31 and Aug 20, 2020, 152 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either continue or discontinue renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy (continuation group n=75; discontinuation group n=77). Mean age of participants was 62 years (SD 12), 68 (45%) were female, mean body-mass index was 33 kg/m² (SD 8), and 79 (52%) had diabetes. Compared with discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, continuation had no effect on the global rank score (median rank 73 [IQR 40-110] for continuation vs 81 [38-117] for discontinuation; ?-coefficient 8 [95% CI -13 to 29]). There were 16 (21%) of 75 participants in the continuation arm versus 14 (18%) of 77 in the discontinuation arm who required intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, and 11 (15%) of 75 participants in the continuation group versus ten (13%) of 77 in the discontinuation group died. 29 (39%) participants in the continuation group and 28 (36%) participants in the discontinuation group had at least one adverse event (?² test of adverse events between treatment groups p=0·77). There was no difference in blood pressure, serum potassium, or creatinine during follow-up across the two groups.

Interpretation

Consistent with international society recommendations, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors can be safely continued in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

Funding

REPLACE COVID Investigators, REPLACE COVID Trial Social Fundraising Campaign, and FastGrants.

SUBMITTER: Cohen JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7832152 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Continuation versus discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a prospective, randomised, open-label trial.

Cohen Jordana B JB Hanff Thomas C TC William Preethi P Sweitzer Nancy N Rosado-Santander Nelson R NR Medina Carola C Rodriguez-Mori Juan E JE Renna Nicolás N Chang Tara I TI Corrales-Medina Vicente V Andrade-Villanueva Jaime F JF Barbagelata Alejandro A Cristodulo-Cortez Roberto R Díaz-Cucho Omar A OA Spaak Jonas J Alfonso Carlos E CE Valdivia-Vega Renzo R Villavicencio-Carranza Mirko M Ayala-García Ricardo J RJ Castro-Callirgos Carlos A CA González-Hernández Luz A LA Bernales-Salas Eduardo F EF Coacalla-Guerra Johanna C JC Salinas-Herrera Cynthia D CD Nicolosi Liliana L Basconcel Mauro M Byrd James B JB Sharkoski Tiffany T Bendezú-Huasasquiche Luis E LE Chittams Jesse J Edmonston Daniel L DL Vasquez Charles R CR Chirinos Julio A JA

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20210107 3

<h4>Background</h4>Biological considerations suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors might influence the severity of COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether continuing versus discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) affects outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>The REPLACE COVID trial was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial done at 20 large referral hospitals in ...[more]

PMID: 33422263

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 entry in human cells depends on angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which can be upregulated by inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We aimed to test our hypothesis that discontinuation of chronic treatment with ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) mitigates the course o\f recent-onset COVID-19.MethodsACEI-COVID was a parallel group, randomised, controlled, open-label trial done at 35 centres in Austria and Germany. Patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled if they presented with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and were chronically treated with ACEIs or ARBs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to discontinuation or continuation of RAS inhibition for 30 days. Primary outcome was the maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score within 30 days, where death was scored with the maximum achievable SOFA score. Secondary endpoints were area under the death-adjusted SOFA score (AUCSOFA), mean SOFA score, admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and death. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353596.FindingsBetween April 20, 2020, and Jan 20, 2021, 204 patients (median age 75 years [IQR 66-80], 37% females) were randomly assigned to discontinue (n=104) or continue (n=100) RAS inhibition. Within 30 days, eight (8%) of 104 died in the discontinuation group and 12 (12%) of 100 patients died in the continuation group (p=0·42). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the discontinuation and continuation group (median [IQR] maximum SOFA score 0·00 (0·00-2·00) vs 1·00 (0·00-3·00); p=0·12). Discontinuation was associated with a significantly lower AUCSOFA (0·00 [0·00-9·25] vs 3·50 [0·00-23·50]; p=0·040), mean SOFA score (0·00 [0·00-0·31] vs 0·12 [0·00-0·78]; p=0·040), and 30-day SOFA score (0·00 [10-90th percentile, 0·00-1·20] vs 0·00 [0·00-24·00]; p=0·023). At 30 days, 11 (11%) in the discontinuation group and 23 (23%) in the continuation group had signs of organ dysfunction (SOFA score ≥1) or were dead (p=0·017). There were no significant differences for mechanical ventilation (10 (10%) vs 8 (8%), p=0·87) and admission to intensive care unit (20 [19%] vs 18 [18%], p=0·96) between the discontinuation and continuation group.InterpretationDiscontinuation of RAS-inhibition in COVID-19 had no significant effect on the maximum severity of COVID-19 but may lead to a faster and better recovery. The decision to continue or discontinue should be made on an individual basis, considering the risk profile, the indication for RAS inhibition, and the availability of alternative therapies and outpatient monitoring options.FundingAustrian Science Fund and German Center for Cardiovascular Research.

Project description:Background and aimsHaemodynamic instability is associated with peri-operative myocardial injury, particularly in patients receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers). Whether stopping RAS inhibitors to minimise hypotension, or continuing RAS inhibitors to avoid hypertension, reduces peri-operative myocardial injury remains unclear.MethodsFrom 31 July 2017 to 1 October 2021, patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to either discontinue or continue RAS inhibitors prescribed for existing medical conditions in six UK centres. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were withheld for different durations (2-3 days) before surgery, according to their pharmacokinetic profile. The primary outcome, masked to investigators, clinicians, and patients, was myocardial injury [plasma high-sensitivity troponin-T (hs-TnT) ≥ 15 ng/L within 48 h after surgery, or ≥5 ng/L increase when pre-operative hs-TnT ≥15 ng/L]. Pre-specified adverse haemodynamic events occurring within 48 h of surgery included acute hypertension (>180 mmHg) and hypotension requiring vasoactive therapy.ResultsTwo hundred and sixty-two participants were randomized to continue (n = 132) or stop (n = 130) RAS inhibitors. Myocardial injury occurred in 58 (48.3%) patients randomized to discontinue, compared with 50 (41.3%) patients who continued, RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.31]. Hypertensive adverse events were more frequent when RAS inhibitors were stopped [16 (12.4%)], compared with 7 (5.3%) who continued RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.4; 95% CI 0.16-1.00]. Hypotension rates were similar when RAS inhibitors were stopped [12 (9.3%)] or continued [11 (8.4%)].ConclusionsDiscontinuing RAS inhibitors before non-cardiac surgery did not reduce myocardial injury, and could increase the risk of clinically significant acute hypertension. These findings require confirmation in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundReducing treatment burden is a priority for people with cystic fibrosis, whose health has benefited from using new modulators that substantially increase CFTR protein function. The SIMPLIFY study aimed to assess the effects of discontinuing nebulised hypertonic saline or dornase alfa in individuals using the CFTR modulator elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor (ETI).MethodsThe SIMPLIFY study included two parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trials at 80 participating clinics across the USA in the Cystic Fibrosis Therapeutics Development Network. We included individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12-17 years with percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) of 70% or more, or those aged 18 years or older with ppFEV1 of 60% or more, if they had been taking ETI and either (or both) mucoactive therapies (≥3% hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) for at least 90 days before screening. Participants on both hypertonic saline and dornase alfa were randomly assigned to one of the two trials, and those on a single therapy were assigned to the applicable trial. All participants were then randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or discontinue therapy for 6 weeks using permuted blocks of varying size, stratified by baseline ppFEV1 (week 0; ≥90% or <90%), single or concurrent use of hypertonic saline and dornase alfa, previous SIMPLIFY study participation (yes or no), and age (≥18 or <18 years). For participants randomly assigned to continue their therapy during a given trial, this therapy was instructed to be taken at least once daily according to each participant's pre-existing, clinically prescribed regimen. Hypertonic saline concentration was required to be at least 3%. The primary objective for each trial was to determine whether discontinuing was non-inferior to continuing, measured by the 6-week change in ppFEV1 in the per-protocol population. We established a non-inferiority margin of -3% for the difference between groups in the 6-week change in ppFEV1. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04378153.FindingsFrom Aug 25, 2020, to May 25, 2022, a total of 672 unique participants were screened for eligibility for one or both trials, resulting in 847 total random assignments across both trials with 594 unique participants. 370 participants were randomly assigned in the hypertonic saline trial and 477 in the dornase alfa trial. Participants across both trials had an average ppFEV1 of 96·9%. Discontinuing treatment was non-inferior to continuing treatment with respect to the absolute 6-week change in ppFEV1 in both the hypertonic saline trial (-0·19% [95% CI -0·85 to 0·48] in the discontinuation group [n=133] vs 0·14% [-0·51 to 0·78] in the continuation group [n=140]; between-group difference -0·32% [-1·25 to 0·60]) and dornase alfa trial (0·18% [-0·38 to 0·74] in the discontinuation group [n=199] vs -0·16% [-0·73 to 0·41] in the continuation group [n=193]; between-group difference 0·35% [-0·45 to 1·14]), with consistent results in the intention-to-treat populations. In the hypertonic saline trial, 64 (35%) of 184 in the discontinuation group versus 44 (24%) of 186 participants in the continuation group and, in the dornase alfa trial, 89 (37%) of 240 in the discontinuation group versus 55 (23%) of 237 in the continuation group had at least one adverse event.InterpretationIn individuals with cystic fibrosis on ETI with relatively well preserved pulmonary function, discontinuing daily hypertonic saline or dornase alfa for 6 weeks did not result in clinically meaningful differences in pulmonary function when compared with continuing treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg-800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12-24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76-0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12-1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77-0·92; p<0·0001).InterpretationIn hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundAspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89-1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02-1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90-1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24).InterpretationIn patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lopinavir-ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir-ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS:In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS:Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir-ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir-ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91-1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91-1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99-1·20; p=0·092). INTERPRETATION:In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir-ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. FUNDING:Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.FindingsFrom June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.FundingCoalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Dataset Information

Continuation versus discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a prospective, randomised, open-label trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Continuation versus discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a prospective, randomised, open-label trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets