IMPORTANCEThe efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.OBJECTIVE To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021).INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from −1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. RESULTSThe aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, −0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI,; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among crit...

ImportanceThe longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPrespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83.ResultsAmong 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

IMPORTANCEOveractivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).INTERVENTIONSPatients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.RESULTSOn February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions. Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison. Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%. Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions. Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison. Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%. Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.