Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury and resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand Factor (VWF), both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS:An international, adaptive randomized-controlled platform trial, funded by the NHLBI, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, with either moderate or severe illness, to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard-of-care, or standard-of-care alone, in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS:The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcome, 163 (77%) patients randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care only arm. The adjusted OR for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CrI, 0.43 to 1.16), where OR>1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility Pr(OR<1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority Pr(OR<1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 (12.8%) deaths in the standard-of-care arm (HR=1.42, 95% CrI 0.90-2.36, Pr(HR>1) = 0.934). CONCLUSIONS:Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ-support free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on angina-related health status (symptoms, function, quality of life) in chronic coronary disease (CCD) has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES:Among patients with CCD randomized to invasive (INV) vs conservative (CON) management in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), we compared the following: 1) the impact of anatomic and functional CR on health status compared with incomplete revascularization (ICR); and 2) the predicted impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON. METHODS:Multivariable regression adjusting for patient characteristics was used to compare 12-month health status after independent core laboratory-defined CR vs ICR in INV patients who underwent revascularization. Propensity-weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR or ICR been achieved in all INV patients, compared with CON. RESULTS:Anatomic and functional CR were achieved in 43.3% and 57.8% of 1,641 INV patients, respectively. Among revascularized patients, CR was associated with improved Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency compared with ICR after adjustment for baseline differences. After modeling CR and ICR in all INV patients, patients with CR and ICR each had greater improvements in health status than CON, with better health status with CR than ICR. The projected benefits of CR were most pronounced in patients with baseline daily/weekly angina and not seen in those with no angina. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with CCD in ISCHEMIA, health status improved more with CR compared with ICR or CON, particularly in those with frequent angina. Anatomic and functional CR provided comparable improvements in quality of life. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND:Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS:One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS:Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

IMPORTANCE:Platelet activation is a potential therapeutic target in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of P2Y12 inhibition among critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This international, open-label, adaptive platform, 1:1 randomized clinical trial included critically ill (requiring intensive care-level support) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled between February 26, 2021, through June 22, 2022. Enrollment was discontinued on June 22, 2022, by the trial leadership in coordination with the study sponsor given a marked slowing of the enrollment rate of critically ill patients. INTERVENTION:Participants were randomly assigned to receive a P2Y12 inhibitor or no P2Y12 inhibitor (usual care) for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death and, for participants who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. RESULTS:At the time of trial termination, 949 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [46-65] years; 603 male [63.5%]) had been randomly assigned, 479 to the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 470 to usual care. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 372 participants (78.8%) and clopidogrel in 100 participants (21.2%). The estimated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the effect of P2Y12 inhibitor on organ support-free days was 1.07 (95% credible interval, 0.85-1.33). The posterior probability of superiority (defined as an OR > 1.0) was 72.9%. Overall, 354 participants (74.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 339 participants (72.4%) in the usual care group survived to hospital discharge (median AOR, 1.15; 95% credible interval, 0.84-1.55; posterior probability of superiority, 80.8%). Major bleeding occurred in 13 participants (2.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 13 (2.8%) in the usual care group. The estimated mortality rate at 90 days for the P2Y12 inhibitor group was 25.5% and for the usual care group was 27.0% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this randomized clinical trial of critically ill participants hospitalized for COVID-19, treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor did not improve the number of days alive and free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. The use of the P2Y12 inhibitor did not increase major bleeding compared with usual care. These data do not support routine use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

Background Psychological well-being is important among individuals with myocardial infarction (MI) given the clear links between stress, depression, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Stress and depressive disorders are more prevalent in women than men after MI. Resilience may protect against stress and depressive disorders after a traumatic event. Longitudinal data are lacking in populations post MI. We examined the role of resilience in the psychological recovery of women post MI, over time. Methods and Results We analyzed a sample from a longitudinal observational multicenter study (United States, Canada) of women post MI, between 2016 and 2020. Perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4 [PSS-4]) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2]) were assessed at baseline (time of MI) and 2 months post MI. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale [BRS]) were collected at baseline. Low and normal/high resilience groups were established as per published cutoffs (BRS scores <3 or ≥3). Mixed-effects modeling was used to examine associations between resilience and psychological recovery over 2 months. The sample included 449 women, mean (SD) age, 62.2 (13.2) years, of whom 61.1% identified as non-Hispanic White, 18.5% as non-Hispanic Black, and 15.4% as Hispanic/Latina. Twenty-three percent had low resilience. The low resilience group had significantly higher PSS-4 and PHQ-2 scores than the normal/high resilience group at all time points. In adjusted models, both groups showed a decrease in PSS-4 scores over time. Conclusions In a diverse cohort of women post MI, higher resilience is associated with better psychological recovery over time. Future work should focus on developing strategies to strengthen resilience and improve psychological well-being for women with MI. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02905357; Unique identifier: NCT02905357.

IMPORTANCE:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. EXPOSURES:Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. RESULTS:Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The optimal revascularization approach in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ischemic heart disease ("ischemic cardiomyopathy") is unknown. Physician preferences regarding clinical equipoise for mode of revascularization and their willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized trial to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy have not been characterized. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted two anonymous online surveys: 1) a clinical case scenario-based survey to assess willingness to offer clinical trial enrollment for a patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (overall response rate to email invitation 0.45 %), and 2) a Delphi consensus-building survey to identify specific areas of clinical equipoise (overall response rate to email invitation 37 %). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.0001). In 17 scenarios (11.8 %), there was no difference in CABG or PCI appropriateness ratings, suggesting clinical equipoise in these settings. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our findings demonstrate willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized clinical trial and areas of clinical equipoise, two factors that support the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes after revascularization with CABG vs. PCI in selected patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, suitable coronary anatomy and co-morbidity profile.

BACKGROUND:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS:Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS:A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).