Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Come and Knock on Our Door: Offenders' Perspectives on Home Visits Through Ecological Theory.

The use of home visits has a long and storied history in the United States from different disciplines, such as nursing, prenatal mothers, young families, health promotion, and community corrections. Ecological theory explains how formal actors play a role in the promotion in the health field through home visits, but does not address community corrections home visits. Through the use of 30 semi-structured interviews, this research seeks to expand the understanding of ecological theory by capturing the perceptions of offenders sentenced to home visits conducted by a sheriff's office. The findings suggest the participants supported the home visits by formal agents and, in general, the home visits created an atmosphere of respect between the participants and sheriff's office personnel. This study creates the context for future research to understand the role of formal agents in recidivism and evaluate the efficacy of home visits by community corrections agencies.

"I Don't See Myself as Prison Material": Motivations for Entering a Rural Drug Court.

Since the inception of drug court in the late 1980s, it has become a widely used alternative to incarcerating drug offenders. Previous research has detailed the effectiveness of programming on recidivism, participants' perceptions of the service delivery model, and cost-effectiveness. The scholarship related to drug offender motivations to participate in drug court has largely discussed family obligations and the sense of loss stemming from drug abuse, and only two studies have discussed the fear of prison as a primary motivator. This research utilized semi-structured interviews with former drug court participants from a rural county in California to ascertain their motivation for engaging in drug court (N = 29). The results show 79% of participants were trying to avoid prison or jail, while 62% were motivated to end the cycle of drug abuse in their lives. The conclusion has policy implications for future drug court design; however, additional research is needed.

A contoured gap coaxial plasma gun with injected plasma armature.

A new coaxial plasma gun is described. The long term objective is to accelerate 100-200 microg of plasma with density above 10(17) cm(-3) to greater than 200 km/s with a Mach number above 10. Such high velocity dense plasma jets have a number of potential fusion applications, including plasma refueling, magnetized target fusion, injection of angular momentum into centrifugally confined mirrors, high energy density plasmas, and others. The approach uses symmetric injection of high density plasma into a coaxial electromagnetic accelerator having an annular gap geometry tailored to prevent formation of the blow-by instability. The injected plasma is generated by numerous (currently 32) radially oriented capillary discharges arranged uniformly around the circumference of the angled annular injection region of the accelerator. Magnetohydrodynamic modeling identified electrode profiles that can achieve the desired plasma jet parameters. The experimental hardware is described along with initial experimental results in which approximately 200 microg has been accelerated to 100 km/s in a half-scale prototype gun. Initial observations of 64 merging injector jets in a planar cylindrical testing array are presented. Density and velocity are presently limited by available peak current and injection sources. Steps to increase both the drive current and the injected plasma mass are described for next generation experiments.