Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Safety and feasibility of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment: 4-week preliminary findings from a Swiss multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is effective for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD) who do not respond sufficiently to other opioid agonist treatments. It is mostly offered with injectable diacetylmorphine (DAM) or DAM tablets creating a barrier for individuals who need the rapid onset of action but are either unable or unwilling to inject, or primarily snort opioids. To explore another route of administration, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of intranasal (IN) DAM. METHODS: This is a multicentre observational cohort study among patients in Swiss HAT. All patients planning to receive IN DAM within the treatment centres were eligible to participate. Participants were either completely switched to IN DAM or received IN DAM in addition to other DAM formulations or opioid agonists. Patients were followed up for four weeks. Sociodemographic characteristics, current HAT regimen, reasons for starting IN DAM, IN DAM doses, number of injection events in the sample, IN DAM continuation rate, and appearance of adverse events and nose-related problems were evaluated. RESULTS: Participants (n = 52) reported vein damage, preference for nasal route of administration, and desire of a stronger effect or for a less harmful route of administration as primary reasons for switching to IN DAM. After four weeks, 90.4% of participants (n = 47) still received IN DAM. Weekly average realised injection events decreased by 44.4% from the month before IN DAM initiation to the month following. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After four weeks, IN DAM was a feasible and safe alternative to other routes of administration for patients with severe OUD in HAT. It addressed the needs of individuals with OUD and reduced injection behaviour. More long-term research efforts are needed to systematically assess efficacy of and patient satisfaction with IN DAM.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Nasal Opioid Agonist Treatment in Patients with Severe Opioid Dependence: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the first-line treatment for opioid dependence. Currently available OAT options comprise oral (methadone and morphine) and sublingual (buprenorphine) routes of administration. In Switzerland and some other countries, severely opioid-dependent individuals with insufficient response to oral or sublingual OAT are offered heroin-assisted treatment (HAT), which involves the provision of injected or oral medical heroin (diacetylmorphine [DAM]). However, many patients on treatment with injectable DAM (i-HAT) suffer from injection-related problems such as deteriorated vein status, ulcerations, endocarditis, and abscesses. Other patients who do not respond to oral OAT do not inject but snort opioids, and are not eligible for i-HAT. For this population, there is no other short-acting OAT with rapid onset of action available unless they switch to injecting, which is associated with higher risks. Nasal DAM (n-HAT) could be an alternative treatment option suitable for both populations of patients. METHODS: We present a case series of 3 patients on i-HAT who successfully switched to n-HAT. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: This is the first description of the clinical use of the nasal route of administration for HAT. n-HAT may constitute an important risk-reduced rapid-onset alternative to i-HAT. In particular, it may be suited for patients with injection-related complications, or noninjecting opioid-dependent patients failing to respond to oral OAT.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Development of an integrative cessation program for co-smokers of cigarettes and cannabis: demand analysis, program description, and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco and cannabis use are strongly interrelated, but current national and international cessation programs typically focus on one substance, and address the other substance either only marginally or not at all. This study aimed to identify the demand for, and describe the development and content of, the first integrative group cessation program for co-smokers of cigarettes and cannabis. METHODS: First, a preliminary study using expert interviews, user focus groups with (ex-)smokers, and an online survey was conducted to investigate the demand for, and potential content of, an integrative smoking cessation program (ISCP) for tobacco and cannabis co-smokers. This study revealed that both experts and co-smokers considered an ISCP to be useful but expected only modest levels of readiness for participation.Based on the findings of the preliminary study, an interdisciplinary expert team developed a course concept and a recruitment strategy. The developed group cessation program is based on current treatment techniques (such as motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioural therapy, and self-control training) and structured into six course sessions.The program was evaluated regarding its acceptability among participants and course instructors. RESULTS: Both the participants and course instructors evaluated the course positively. Participants and instructors especially appreciated the group discussions and the modules that were aimed at developing personal strategies that could be applied during simultaneous cessation of tobacco and cannabis, such as dealing with craving, withdrawal, and high-risk situations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear demand for a double cessation program for co-users of cigarettes and cannabis, and the first group cessation program tailored for these users has been developed and evaluated for acceptability. In the near future, the feasibility of the program will be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15248397.

Intervenção coronária percutânea emergencial de tronco de coronária esquerda não-protegido em paciente com transplante do coração / Emergency unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention in a heart transplant patient

A doença vascular do enxerto cardíaco é a principal causa de falência do enxerto e morte depois do primeiro ano após o transplante. O melhor tratamento para lesões de tronco de coronária esquerda não-protegido em corações transplantados ainda não está estabelecido. Descrevemos o caso de uma intervenção coronária percutânea emergencial de tronco de coronária esquerda não-protegido em coração transplantado após morte súbita revertida com sucesso em paciente que aguardava cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio.

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy is the leading cause of graft failure and death after the first year of heart transplantation. The optimal therapy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease in transplanted hearts has not been established. We report a case of emergency unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention in a transplanted heart after an aborted sudden death in a patient who was waiting for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.