Dataset Information

Rivaroxaban versus no anticoagulation for post-discharge thromboprophylaxis after hospitalisation for COVID-19 (MICHELLE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk for thrombotic events after discharge; the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is unknown.

Methods

In this open-label, multicentre, randomised trial conducted at 14 centres in Brazil, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism [IMPROVE] venous thromboembolism [VTE] score of ≥4 or 2-3 with a D-dimer >500 ng/mL) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, at hospital discharge, rivaroxaban 10 mg/day or no anticoagulation for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome in an intention-to-treat analysis was a composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism, asymptomatic venous thromboembolism on bilateral lower-limb venous ultrasound and CT pulmonary angiogram, symptomatic arterial thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death at day 35. Adjudication was blinded. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The primary and safety analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04662684.

Findings

From Oct 8, 2020, to June 29, 2021, 997 patients were screened. Of these patients, 677 did not meet eligibility criteria; the remaining 320 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=160 [50%]) or no anticoagulation (n=160 [50%]). All patients received thromboprophylaxis with standard doses of heparin during hospitalisation. 165 (52%) patients were in the intensive care unit while hospitalised. 197 (62%) patients had an IMPROVE score of 2-3 and elevated D-dimer levels and 121 (38%) had a score of 4 or more. Two patients (one in each group) were lost to follow-up due to withdrawal of consent and not included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in five (3%) of 159 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and 15 (9%) of 159 patients assigned to no anticoagulation (relative risk 0·33, 95% CI 0·12-0·90; p=0·0293). No major bleeding occurred in either study group. Allergic reactions occurred in two (1%) patients in the rivaroxaban group.

Interpretation

In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days improved clinical outcomes compared with no extended thromboprophylaxis.

Funding

Bayer.

SUBMITTER: Ramacciotti E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8673881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.MethodsOVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed.FindingsAt the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group.InterpretationThese findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates.FundingSNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

Project description:[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3?years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3?months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk?=?1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P?=?0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P?=?0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P?=?0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18?192?±?27?679 € versus 11?131?±?13? €, P?<?0.033).18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.NCT00624260.

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.

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely.Methods and analysisThis is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04808882.

Project description:Background: Influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality despite available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest that plasma with high antibody titres to influenza might be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.Methods: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial, 29 academic medical centres in the USA assessed the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with haemagglutination inhibition antibody titres of 1:80 or more to the infecting strain. Hospitalised children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as the presence of hypoxia or tachypnoea) were randomly assigned to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care, versus standard care alone, and were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalisation of patients' respiratory status (respiratory rate of ?20 breaths per min for adults or age-defined thresholds of 20-38 breaths per min for children) and a room air oxygen saturation of 93% or more. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01052480.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2011, and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened for eligibility and 98 were randomly assigned from 20 out of 29 participating sites. Of the participants with confirmed influenza (by PCR), 28 (67%) of 42 in the plasma plus standard care group normalised their respiratory status by day 28 compared with 24 (53%) of 45 participants on standard care alone (p=0·069). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing plasma plus standard care with standard care alone was 1·71 (95% CI 0·96-3·06). Six participants died, one (2%) from the plasma plus standard care group and five (10%) from the standard care group (HR 0·19 [95% CI 0·02-1·65], p=0·093). Participants in the plasma plus standard care group had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 days [IQR 4-16] vs 11 days [5-25], p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 days [IQR 0-6] vs 3 days [0-14], p=0·14). Fewer plasma plus standard care participants had serious adverse events compared with standard care alone recipients (nine [20%] of 46 vs 20 [38%] of 52, p=0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients) and stroke (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients).Interpretation: Although there was no significant effect of plasma treatment on the primary endpoint, the treatment seemed safe and well tolerated. A phase 3 randomised trial is now underway to further assess this intervention.Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.