METHODS
In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support–free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2).

RESULTS
Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support–free days was 11 (interquartile range, −1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control.

CONCLUSIONS
Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control.

Objective  
To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants  
Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.

Interventions  
Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).

Main Outcomes and Measures  
The primary outcome was a composite of organ support–free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from –1 organ support–free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support–free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.

Results  
Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support–free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, −1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support–free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.

Conclusions and Relevance  
In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support–free days and hospital survival.

Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Objective 

To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Design, setting and participants 

In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).

Interventions 

Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. 

Main outcomes and measures 

The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.

Results 

On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).

Conclusions and relevance 

In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.

The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown.

Objective 

To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022.

Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401).

Main outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Results

Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies.

Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective  

To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.

Results

The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support–free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, −0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support–free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).

To estimate pairwise associations between administration of tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo with 28-day mortality, in COVID-19 patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids and non-invasive or mechanical ventilation, based on all available direct and indirect evidence.

Methods 

Eligible trials randomized hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that compared either interleukin-6 receptor antagonist with usual care or placebo in a recent prospective meta-analysis (27 trials, 10930 patients) or that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab. Data were restricted to patients receiving corticosteroids and either non-invasive or invasive ventilation at randomization.

Pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo for all-cause mortality 28 days after randomization were estimated using a frequentist contrast-based network meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs), implementing multivariate fixed-effects models that assume consistency between the direct and indirect evidence.

Results 

One trial (REMAP-CAP) was identified that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab and supplied results on all-cause mortality at 28-days. This network meta-analysis was based on 898 eligible patients (278 deaths) from REMAP-CAP and 3710 eligible patients from 18 trials (1278 deaths) from the prospective meta-analysis. Summary ORs were similar for tocilizumab [0.82 [0.71-0.95, P=0.008]] and sarilumab [0.80 [0.61-1.04, P=0.09]] compared with usual care or placebo. The summary OR for 28-day mortality comparing tocilizumab with sarilumab was 1.03 [95%CI 0.81-1.32, P=0.80]. The P value for the global test for inconsistency was 0.28.

Purpose

To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine,
combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary
endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and
expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable.

Results

We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination
therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir,
hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%),
respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ supportfree
days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding
posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9%
and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65
[0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%,
respectively).

Conclusion

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination
therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

Keywords:

Adaptive platform trial, Intensive care, Pneumonia, Pandemic, COVID-19, Lopinavir-ritonavir,
Hydroxychloroquine

The interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab improves outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of other immune modulating agents is unclear.

METHODS 

We evaluated four immunomodulatory agents in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult participants with COVID-19 were randomized to receive tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra, or standard care (control). In addition, a small group (n=21) of participants were randomized to interferon-β1a. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial used a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers for superiority, equivalence or futility.

RESULTS 

Statistical triggers for equivalence between tocilizumab and sarilumab; and for inferiority of anakinra to the other active interventions were met at a planned adaptive analysis. Of the 2274 critically ill participants enrolled, 972 were assigned to tocilizumab, 485 to sarilumab, 378 to anakinra and 418 to control. Median organ support-free days were 7 (interquartile range [IQR] –1, 16), 9 (IQR –1, 17), 0 (IQR –1, 15) and 0 (IQR –1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra and control, respectively. Median adjusted odds ratios were 1.46 (95%CrI 1.13, 1.87), 1.50 (95%CrI 1.13, 2.00), and 0.99 (95%CrI 0.74, 1.35) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and anakinra, yielding 99.8%, 99.8% and 46.6% posterior probabilities of superiority, respectively, compared to control. Median adjusted odds ratios for hospital survival were 1.42 (95%CrI 1.05,1.93), 1.51 (95%CrI 1.06, 2.20) and 0.97 (95%CrI 0.66, 1.40) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and anakinra respectively, compared to control, yielding 98.8%, 98.8% and 43.6% posterior probabilities of superiority, respectively, compared to control. All treatments appeared safe.