Results and Publications
Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials
Question: Does vitamin C administered intravenously to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 improve organ support–free days (composite outcome of in-hospital mortality and days alive and free of intensive care unit–based respiratory and cardiovascular support) up to day 21?
Findings: In 2 prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials, the use of vitamin C vs control (placebo or no vitamin C) yielded posterior probabilities for efficacy of 8.6% among 1568 critically ill patients and 2.9% among 1022 patients who were not critically ill regarding the odds of improvement for organ support–free days.
Meaning: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was a low probability that vitamin C improved organ support–free days.
Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19
Background: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.
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.
Continuation of therapeutic dose heparin for critically ill patients with COVID-19
Non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 receiving therapeutic-dose heparin, were enrolled when they became critically ill and randomized to either continue therapeutic dose anticoagulation (n = 26) or reduce (n = 46), to either intermediate- or standard low-dose prophylaxis.
Enrollment to the continuation of therapeutic-dose heparin intervention was discontinued on recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board when the prespecified criterion for futility was met. Enrollment continues to randomization between intermediate and low-dose heparin interventions.
Among 72 critically ill patients (median age, 58.5 years; [29.2%] female), median (IQR) OSFDs was 11(–1(non-survivors), 13) and 15(0, 18) for continuation of therapeutic-dose and reduced-dose heparin groups (median adjusted OR 0.54 (95%Crl 0.26–1.21); 97.4% posterior probability of futility; 93.8% posterior probability of harm).
In patients who became critically ill while receiving therapeutic-dose heparin initiated when non-critically ill, continuation of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, compared with dose reduction, confers no clinical benefit and appears harmful.
Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Question: Does initiating an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 improve organ support–free days (a composite of hospital survival and duration of intensive care respiratory or cardiovascular support)?
Findings: In this randomized clinical trial that included 779 patients, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve organ support–free days. Among critically ill patients, there was a 95% probability that treatments worsened this outcome.
Meaning: Among critically ill patients, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB as treatment for COVID-19 did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.
Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial
Question: What is the effect of treatment for critically ill patients with COVID-19 on longer-term mortality, disability, and health-related quality of life?
Findings: In this Bayesian adaptive randomized clinical platform trial that included 4869 critically ill patients with COVID-19, the probability was high that IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents improved survival at 6 months (posterior probabilities of superiority of >99.9% and 95.0%, respectively). Long-term outcomes were not improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%) and were worsened with hydroxychloroquine (posterior probability of harm, 96.8%). Corticosteroids did not improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment had been terminated early in response to external evidence.
Meaning: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, there was a high likelihood of improved 180-day mortality among patients treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents.
Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Question: Does antiplatelet therapy administered to critically ill patients with COVID-19 improve organ support–free days (a composite end point of in-hospital mortality and duration of intensive care unit–based respiratory or cardiovascular support) up to day 21?
Findings: In this Bayesian randomized clinical trial that included 1557 patients, antiplatelet therapy with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, compared with no antiplatelet therapy, resulted in a 95.7% posterior probability of futility with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support–free days within 21 days.
Meaning: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, there was a low likelihood that treatment with an antiplatelet agent provided improvement in organ support–free days within 21 days.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Question: Does 2 units of ABO-compatible, high-titer convalescent plasma, administered to critically ill patients with COVID-19, improve organ support–free days up to day 21 (a composite end point of in-hospital mortality and the duration of intensive care unit–based respiratory or cardiovascular support)?
Findings: This international Bayesian randomized clinical trial that included 2011 participants treated with 2 units of high-titer convalescent plasma, compared with no convalescent plasma, resulted in a posterior probability of futility of 99.4% for the primary outcome of organ support–free days up to day 21.
Meaning: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in organ support–free days.
Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19
Background: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.
Methods: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support–free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.
Results: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support–free days was 1 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
Conclusions: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19
Background: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.
Methods: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care–level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support–free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.
Results: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support–free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.
Conclusions: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis.
Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial
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 support-free 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.
Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19
Background: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.
Methods: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support–free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both.
Results: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support–free days was 10 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, −1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.
Conclusions: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival.
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial
Question: Does intravenous hydrocortisone, administered either as a 7-day fixed-dose course or restricted to when shock is clinically evident, improve 21-day organ support–free days (a composite end point of in-hospital mortality and the duration of intensive care unit–based respiratory or cardiovascular support) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
Findings: In this Bayesian randomized clinical trial that included 403 patients and was stopped early after results from another trial were released, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority, respectively, with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support–free days within 21 days.
Meaning: Although suggestive of benefit for hydrocortisone in patients with severe COVID-19, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.
Secondary Analyses and Sub-Studies
Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019 subphenotypes and differential treatment response to convalescent plasma in critically ill adults: secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial
Virological Characterization of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the United Kingdom: Interactions of Viral Load, Antibody Status, and B.1.1.7 Infection
Selected Meta-Analyses
Association between tocilizumab, sarilumab and all-cause mortality at 28 days in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis
Methods and Commentary
The European clinical research response to optimise treatment of patients with COVID-19: lessons learned, future perspective, and recommendations
Platform trials as the way forward in infectious disease’ clinical research: the case of coronavirus disease 2019
International platform trials: as diseases cross borders, so should trials
Co-designing and pilot testing an infographic to support patients/families through the REMAP-CAP consent process: a mixed-methods study protocol
Why participation in an international clinical trial platform matters during a pandemic? Launching REMAP-CAP in Japan
Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system
Implementation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 (REMAP-COVID) trial in a US health system—lessons learned and recommendations
The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design