BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Given advanced age, comorbidities, and immune dysfunction, CLL patients may be at particularly high risk of infection and poor outcomes related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Robust analysis of outcomes for CLL patients, particularly examining effects of baseline characteristics and CLL-directed therapy, is critical to optimally manage CLL patients through this evolving pandemic. CLL patients diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 across 43 international centers (n=198) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 90%. Median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 70.5 years. Median CIRS score was 8 (range 4-32). Thirty-nine percent were treatment-naïve ("watch and wait") while 61% had received ≥1 CLL-directed therapy (median 2, range 1-8). Ninety patients (45%) were receiving active CLL therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis, most commonly BTK inhibitors (BTKi; n=68/90, 76%). At a median follow-up of 16 days, the overall case fatality rate (CFR) was 33%, though 25% remain admitted. "Watch and wait" and treated cohorts had similar rates of admission (89% vs. 90%), ICU admission (35% vs. 36%), intubation (33% vs. 25%), and mortality (37% vs. 32%). CLL-directed treatment with BTKi at COVID-19 diagnosis did not impact survival (CFR 34% vs. 35%), though BTKi was held during COVID-19 course for most patients. These data suggest that the subgroup of CLL patients admitted with COVID-19, regardless of disease phase or treatment status, are at high risk of death. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to assess SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, these data should be validated independently, and randomized studies of BTKi in COVID-19 are needed to provide definitive evidence of benefit.

Writing Committee for the REMAP-CAP Investigators IMPORTANCE The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.OBJECTIVE To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONSThe immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, −1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11...

No abstract

Ibrutinib is an established treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and clinical trial data supports use at second line compared to later relapse. We aimed to investigate outcomes and tolerability for ibrutinib when given second line in a real-world setting. Our multicentre retrospective analysis included 211 R/R MCL patients, median age 73 years, receiving ibrutinib second-line within the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Overall response to ibrutinib was 69% (complete response 27%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17Á8 months (95% CI 13Á1-22Á2) and median overall survival (OS) 23Á9 months (95% CI 15Á0-32Á8). Drug-related adverse event led to dose reduction in 10% of patients and discontinuation in 5%. In patients with progressive disease, accounting for 100 of 152 patients stopping ibrutinib, 43% received further systemic therapy. Post-ibrutinib rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC) showed a trend toward improved survival compared to alternative systemic treatments (post-ibrutinib median OS 14Á0 months, 95% CI 8Á1-19Á8, vs. 3Á6 months, 95% CI 2Á6-4Á5, P = 0Á06). Our study confirms the clinical benefit and good tolerability of ibrutinib at first relapse in a real-world population. Patients progressing on ibrutinib had limited survival but outcomes with R-BAC in select patients were promising.