Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards.DesignRandomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial.Setting28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US.Participants465 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).InterventionsTherapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death.Main outcome measuresThe 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.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. 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).ConclusionsIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Severe tricuspid regurgitation is associated with disabling symptoms and an increased risk of death. Data regarding outcomes after percutaneous transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement are needed. In this international, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement and medical therapy (valve-replacement group) or medical therapy alone (control group). The hierarchical composite primary outcome was death from any cause, implantation of a right ventricular assist device or heart transplantation, postindex tricuspid-valve intervention, hospitalization for heart failure, an improvement of at least 10 points in the score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ-OS), an improvement of at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and an improvement of at least 30 m on the 6-minute walk distance. A win ratio was calculated for the primary outcome by comparing all possible patient pairs, starting with the first event in the hierarchy. A total of 267 patients were assigned to the valve-replacement group and 133 to the control group. At 1 year, the win ratio favoring valve replacement was 2.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.62; P<0.001). In comparisons of patient pairs, those in the valve-replacement group had more wins than the control group with respect to death from any cause (14.8% vs. 12.5%), postindex tricuspid-valve intervention (3.2% vs. 0.6%), and improvement in the KCCQ-OS score (23.1% vs. 6.0%), NYHA class (10.2% vs. 0.8%), and 6-minute walk distance (1.1% vs. 0.9%). The valve-replacement group had fewer wins than the control group with respect to the annualized rate of hospitalization for heart failure (9.7% vs. 10.0%). Severe bleeding occurred in 15.4% of the valve-replacement group and in 5.3% of the control group (P = 0.003); new permanent pacemakers were implanted in 17.4% and 2.3%, respectively (P<0.001). For patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement was superior to medical therapy alone for the primary composite outcome, driven primarily by improvements in symptoms and quality of life. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; TRISCEND II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04482062.).

Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89–1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02–1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90–1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Nearly 600,000 people in a large health care organization were followed after vaccination for infection, hospitalization, and severe Covid-19. Estimated vaccine effectiveness in preventing death was 72% during the period from day 14 through day 20 after the first dose, and for the period 7 or more days after the second dose, hospitalization was reduced by 87%. These results were similar to those reported in a randomized trial.

The randomized trial assessing the efficacy of a single injection of the Ad26.COV2.S showed 56.3% vaccine efficacy beginning 14 days after injection and 52.9% efficacy more than 28 days after injection against moderate to severe–critical Covid-19. Protection lasted at least 6 months without an added boost. Vaccination was associated with mild-to-moderate adverse effects.

Remote patient management in patients with heart failure might help to detect early signs and symptoms of cardiac decompensation, thus enabling a prompt initiation of the appropriate treatment and care before a full manifestation of a heart failure decompensation. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of our remote patient management intervention on mortality and morbidity in a well defined heart failure population. The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial was a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked (with randomisation concealment), multicentre trial with pragmatic elements introduced for data collection. The trial was done in Germany, and patients were recruited from hospitals and cardiology practices. Eligible patients had heart failure, were in New York Heart Association class II or III, had been admitted to hospital for heart failure within 12 months before randomisation, and had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 45% or lower (or if higher than 45%, oral diuretics were being prescribed). Patients with major depression were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a secure web-based system to either remote patient management plus usual care or to usual care only and were followed up for a maximum of 393 days. The primary outcome was percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or all-cause death, analysed in the full analysis set. Key secondary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878630, and has now been completed. Between Aug 13, 2013, and May 12, 2017, 1571 patients were randomly assigned to remote patient management (n=796) or usual care (n=775). Of these 1571 patients, 765 in the remote patient management group and 773 in the usual care group started their assigned care, and were included in the full analysis set. The percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause death was 4·88% (95% CI 4·55–5·23) in the remote patient management group and 6·64% (6·19–7·13) in the usual care group (ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65–1·00; p=0·0460). Patients assigned to remote patient management lost a mean of 17·8 days (95% CI 16·6–19·1) per year compared with 24·2 days (22·6–26·0) per year for patients assigned to usual care. The all-cause death rate was 7·86 (95% CI 6·14–10·10) per 100 person-years of follow-up in the remote patient management group compared with 11·34 (9·21–13·95) per 100 person-years of follow-up in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·50–0·96; p=0·0280). Cardiovascular mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0·671, 95% CI 0·45–1·01; p=0·0560). The TIM-HF2 trial suggests that a structured remote patient management intervention, when used in a well defined heart failure population, could reduce the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause mortality. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A Camden, New Jersey, “hotspotting” program is designed to prevent rehospitalizations among “superutilizers” of heath care services through home visits and telephone calls from nurses, social workers, and community health care workers who help coordinate outpatient care. In a randomized, controlled trial, the program did not reduce hospital readmissions.

In an observational study involving nearly 440,000 veterans, both the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine were highly effective at preventing infection, hospitalization, and death from Covid-19. Infection risks were approximately 21% lower with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. Follow-up included periods when either the alpha variant or the delta variant was dominant.

Guidelines recommend the use of nutritional support during hospital stays for medical patients (patients not critically ill and not undergoing surgical procedures) at risk of malnutrition. However, the supporting evidence for this recommendation is insufficient, and there is growing concern about the possible negative effects of nutritional therapy during acute illness on recovery and clinical outcomes. Our aim was thus to test the hypothesis that protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals reduces the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in medical inpatients at nutritional risk. The Effect of early nutritional support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of malnourished medical inpatients Trial (EFFORT) is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre study. We recruited medical patients at nutritional risk (nutritional risk screening 2002 [NRS 2002] score ≥3 points) and with an expected length of hospital stay of more than 4 days from eight Swiss hospitals. These participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals (intervention group) or standard hospital food (control group). Randomisation was done with variable block sizes and stratification according to study site and severity of malnutrition using an interactive web-response system. In the intervention group, individualised nutritional support goals were defined by specialist dietitians and nutritional support was initiated no later than 48 h after admission. Patients in the control group received no dietary consultation. The composite primary endpoint was any adverse clinical outcome defined as all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care, non-elective hospital readmission, major complications, and decline in functional status at 30 days, and it was measured in all randomised patients who completed the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02517476. 5015 patients were screened, and 2088 were recruited and monitored between April 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2018. 1050 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 1038 to the control group. 60 patients withdrew consent during the course of the trial (35 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group). During the hospital stay, caloric goals were reached in 800 (79%) and protein goals in 770 (76%) of 1015 patients in the intervention group. By 30 days, 232 (23%) patients in the intervention group experienced an adverse clinical outcome, compared with 272 (27%) of 1013 patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·97], p=0·023). By day 30, 73 [7%] patients had died in the intervention group compared with 100 [10%] patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·65 [0·47–0·91], p=0·011). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects from nutritional support between the intervention and the control group (162 [16%] vs 145 [14%], adjusted OR 1·16 [0·90–1·51], p=0·26). In medical inpatients at nutritional risk, the use of individualised nutritional support during the hospital stay improved important clinical outcomes, including survival, compared with standard hospital food. These findings strongly support the concept of systematically screening medical inpatients on hospital admission regarding nutritional risk, independent of their medical condition, followed by a nutritional assessment and introduction of individualised nutritional support in patients at risk. The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland.

In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a lower rate of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo.