Background COVID-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. Findings From 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.Interpretation In 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 anticoagul...

BackgroundCutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is treated with parenteral drugs for decades with decreasing rate cures. Miltefosine is an oral medication with anti-leishmania activity and may increase the cure rates and improve compliance.Methodology/Principal FindingsThis study is a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of miltefosine versus pentavalent antimony (Sbv) in the treatment of patients with CL caused by Leishmania braziliensis in Bahia, Brazil. A total of 90 patients were enrolled in the trial; 60 were assigned to receive miltefosine and 30 to receive Sbv. Six months after treatment, in the intention-to-treat analyses, the definitive cure rate was 53.3% in the Sbv group and 75% in the miltefosine group (difference of 21.7%, 95% CI 0.08% to 42.7%, p = 0.04). Miltefosine was more effective than Sbv in the age group of 13–65 years-old compared to 2–12 years-old group (78.9% versus 45% p = 0.02; 68.2% versus 70% p = 1.0, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the Sbv and miltefosine groups (76.7% vs. 78.3%). Vomiting (41.7%), nausea (40%), and abdominal pain (23.3%) were significantly more frequent in the miltefosine group while arthralgias (20.7%), mialgias (20.7%) and fever (23.3%) were significantly more frequent in the Sbv group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that miltefosine therapy is more effective than standard Sbv and safe for the treatment of CL caused by Leishmania braziliensis in Bahia, Brazil.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT00600548

The incidence, predictors and clinical significance of acute renal failure (ARF) after lung transplantation are not well described. We retrospectively collected data on 296 patients transplanted at our center be-