Hochman, Judith S.

OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to test whether clazakizumab, a direct interleukin-6 inhibitor, benefits patients hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 disease accompanied by hyperinflammation. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, seamless phase II/III trial. SETTING: Five U.S. medical centers. PATIENTS: Adults inpatients with severe COVID-19 disease and hyperinflammation. INTERVENTIONS: Eighty-one patients enrolled in phase II, randomized 1:1:1 to low-dose (12.5 mg) or high-dose (25 mg) clazakizumab or placebo. Ninety-seven patients enrolled in phase III, randomized 1:1 to high-dose clazakizumab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 28-day ventilator-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, frequency and duration of intubation, and frequency and duration of ICU admission. Per Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommendations, additional secondary outcomes describing clinical status and status changes, as measured by an ordinal scale, were added. Bayesian cumulative proportional odds, logistic, and Poisson regression models were used. The low-dose arm was dropped when the phase II study suggested superiority of the high-dose arm. We report on 152 patients, 74 randomized to placebo and 78 to high-dose clazakizumab. Patients receiving clazakizumab had greater odds of 28-day ventilator-free survival (odds ratio [OR] = 3.84; p [OR > 1] 99.9%), as well as overall survival at 28 and 60 days (OR = 1.75; p [OR > 1] 86.5% and OR = 2.53; p [OR > 1] 97.7%). Clazakizumab was associated with lower odds of intubation (OR = 0.2; p [OR] < 1; 99.9%) and ICU admission (OR = 0.26; p [OR < 1] 99.6%); shorter durations of ventilation and ICU stay (risk ratio [RR] < 0.75; p [RR < 1] > 99% for both); and greater odds of improved clinical status at 14, 28, and 60 days (OR = 2.32, p [OR > 1] 98.1%; OR = 3.36, p [OR > 1] 99.6%; and OR = 3.52, p [OR > 1] 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clazakizumab significantly improved 28-day ventilator-free survival, 28- and 60-day overall survival, as well as clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation.

Background In participants with concomitant chronic coronary disease and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of treatment strategies on the timing of dialysis initiation is not well characterized. Methods and Results In ISCHEMIA‐CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches–Chronic Kidney Disease), 777 participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to either an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Herein, we compare the proportion of randomized participants with non–dialysis‐requiring CKD at baseline (n=362) who initiated dialysis and compare the time to dialysis initiation between invasive versus conservative management arms. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we also sought to identify the effect of invasive versus conservative chronic coronary disease management strategies on dialysis initiation. At a median follow‐up of 23 months (25th–75th interquartile range, 14–32 months), dialysis was initiated in 18.9% of participants (36/190) in the invasive strategy and 16.9% of participants (29/172) in the conservative strategy (P= 0.22). The median time to dialysis initiation was 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0–16.0 months) in the invasive group and 18.2 months (interquartile range, 12.2–25.0 months) in the conservative group (P= 0.004), with no difference in procedural acute kidney injury rates between the groups (7.8% versus 5.4%; P =0.26). Baseline clinical factors associated with earlier dialysis initiation were lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR] associated with 5‐unit decrease, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.72–2.56]; P <0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28–4.13]; P =0.005), hypertension (HR, 7.97 [95% CI, 1.09–58.21]; P =0.041), and Hispanic ethnicity (HR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.22–4.47]; P =0.010). Conclusions In participants with non–dialysis‐requiring CKD in ISCHEMIA‐CKD, randomization to an invasive chronic coronary disease management strategy (relative to a conservative chronic coronary disease management strategy) is associated with an accelerated time to initiation of maintenance dialysis for kidney failure. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

AbstractRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard to evaluate clinical interventions, producing the highest level of evidence while minimizing potential bias. Inadequate recruitment is a commonly encountered problem that undermines the completion and generalizability of RCTs—and is even more challenging when enrolling amidst a pandemic. Here, we reflect on our experiences with virtual recruitment of non‐hospitalized patients in the United States for ColCorona, an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) drug trial. Recruitment challenges during a pandemic include constraints created by shelter‐in‐place policies and targeting enrollment according to national and local fluctuations in infection rate. Presenting a study to potential participants who are sick with COVID‐19 and may be frightened, overwhelmed, or mistrusting of clinical research remains a challenge. Strategies previously reported to improve recruitment include transparency, patient and site education, financial incentives, and person‐to‐person outreach. Active measures taken during ColCorona to optimize United States recruitment involved rapid expansion of sites, adjustment of recruitment scripts, assessing telephone calls versus text messages for initial contact with participants, institutional review board‐approved financial compensation, creating an infrastructure to systematically identify potentially eligible patients, partnering with testing sites, appealing to both self‐interest and altruism, and large‐scale media efforts with varying degrees of success.

Background: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. Methods: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. Results: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P <0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3–5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO ( P =0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants ( P =0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). Conclusions: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02347215.

Background —A multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy, PURSUIT) demonstrated that the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist eptifibatide reduced the incidence of death or myocardial infarction among patients with acute ischemic syndromes without ST-segment elevation. Because of expected differences in practice patterns, a prospectively planned analysis of outcomes as a function of regions of the world was performed. The current study provides a detailed assessment of eptifibatide among the subgroup of patients enrolled within the United States. Methods and Results —Patients presenting with chest pain within the previous 24 hours and ischemic ECG changes or creatine kinase–MB elevation were eligible for enrollment. Of the 10 948 patients randomized worldwide, 4035 were enrolled within the United States. Patients were allocated to placebo or eptifibatide infusion for up to 72 to 96 hours. Other medical therapies and revascularization strategies were at the discretion of the treating physician. Eptifibatide reduced the rate of the primary end point of death or myocardial infarction by 30 days from 15.4% to 11.9% ( P =0.003) among patients in the United States. The treatment effect was achieved early and maintained over a period of 6 months (18.9% versus 15.2%; P =0.004). Bleeding events were more common in patients receiving eptifibatide but were predominantly associated with invasive procedures. The magnitude of clinical benefit from eptifibatide was greater among patients in the United States than elsewhere in the world. Conclusions —Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade with eptifibatide reduces the incidence of death or myocardial infarction among patients treated for acute ischemic syndromes without ST-segment elevation within the United States.

Background —Cardiogenic shock is usually considered a sequela of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. There are limited prospective data on the incidence and significance of shock in non−ST-segment elevation patients. This study assessed the incidence and outcomes of cardiogenic shock developing after enrollment among patients with and without ST-segment elevation in the Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-IIb trial. Methods and Results —Among 12 084 patients in GUSTO-IIb who did not present with cardiogenic shock, 4092 (34%) had and 7991 (66%) did not have ST-segment elevation on the enrollment ECG. Cardiogenic shock developed in 4.2% of ST-segment elevation patients compared with 2.5% of patients without ST-segment elevation (odds ratio, 0.581; 95% CI, 0.472 to 0.715; P <0.001). Shock developed significantly later among patients without ST-segment elevation. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics between shock patients with and without ST-segment elevation: Patients without ST-segment elevation were older, more frequently had diabetes mellitus and 3-vessel disease, but had less TIMI grade 0 flow at angiography. Regardless of the initial ECG, mortality was high: 63% among patients with ST-segment elevation and 73% in those without ST-segment elevation. Conclusions —Cardiogenic shock occurs in the setting of acute ischemic syndromes regardless of whether ST-segment elevation is present. The incidence, patient characteristics, timing, clinical course, and angiographic findings differ between the 2 groups. Mortality from cardiogenic shock is similarly high among patients with and without ST-segment elevation.