Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. Design Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. Setting 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. Participants 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). Interventions Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m 2 . At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). Conclusions In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085 .

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drugs often apply for additional indications based on randomized clinical trials. Real-world database analyses on a medication's use and outcomes in routine settings of care might help to inform decision making regarding such supplemental indications. OBJECTIVE To examine whether longitudinal data from a health care database can support the results of a randomized clinical trial that led to a supplemental indication for telmisartan. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study of patients newly prescribed telmisartan or ramipril used insurance claims data from a nationwide health care database from January 1, 2003, through September 30, 2009, to compare patient outcomes. This study replicated the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End-point Trial (ONTARGET) and used propensity score matching to balance 74 patient characteristics. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2017, to May 24, 2017. EXPOSURES Telmisartan use vs ramipril use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. RESULTS Of the 640 951 patients included in the study, 48 053 were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 68.29 [9.52] years; 31 940 male [66.5%]) and 4665 were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 male [51.7%]). After propensity score matching, a total of 4665 patients were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 [51.7%]), and 4665 patients were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 69.36 [9.67] years; 2343 male [50.2%]). As seen in ONTARGET, the composite risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for congestive heart failure was similar for the 2 medications (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1). In addition, the study found that telmisartan was associated with a substantially decreased risk of angioedema (hazard ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03-0.56) compared with ramipril. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Real-world data analyses of patients receiving routine care provided findings similar to those found in the randomized clinical trial that established telmisartan's supplemental indication. In certain situations, database studies may support supplemental applications for effectiveness for already approved medications.

Background: Prior data evaluating risk of severe UTI infections with Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have reported conflicting findings.Objective: To assess whether patients initiating SGLT2i were at an increased risk of developing severe UTI events compared to those initiating Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and Glucagon-like Peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1a). Design-Population-based cohort study Setting-Two large US-based commercial claims databases (March 2013 -September 2015)Participants-Within each database, two cohorts of 1:1 propensity score-matched patients 18 years and older with type 2 diabetes mellitus, initiating SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors (cohort 1) or GLP1 agonists (cohort 2) Measurements: The primary outcome was a severe UTI event, defined as a hospitalization for either primary UTI, sepsis with UTI or pyelonephritis; secondary outcome was outpatient UTI treated with antibiotics. Hazard ratios [HRs] were estimated in each propensity-score matched cohort adjusting for more than 90 baseline characteristics.Results-After 1:1 PS matching, we identified 123,752 patients in cohort 1 and 111,978 patients in cohort 2 in the two databases. In cohort 1, there were 61 severe UTI events among initiators of SGLT2 inhibitors (incidence rate [IR] per 1,000 person-years=1.76) v 57 in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (IR =1.77), corresponding to a HR of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.68, 1.41). In cohort 2, there were 73 events in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (IR=2.15) vs 87 in the GLP1 agonist group (IR=2.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19.DesignMulticentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial.Setting15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021.ParticipantsEligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis.InterventionPatients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen.ResultsThe trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care.ConclusionAmong non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.