Clinical Features of and Risk Factors for Fatal Ebola Virus Disease, Moyamba District, Sierra Leone, December 2014-February 2015.

The 2013-2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa infected >28,000 people, including >11,000 who died, and disrupted social life in the region. We retrospectively studied clinical signs and symptoms and risk factors for fatal outcome among 31 Ebola virus-positive patients admitted to the Ebola Treatment Center in Moyamba District, Sierra Leone. We found a higher rate of bleeding manifestations than reported elsewhere during the outbreak. Significant predictors for death were shorter time from symptom onset to admission, male sex, high viral load on initial laboratory testing, severe pain, diarrhea, bloody feces, and development of other bleeding manifestations during hospitalization. These risk factors for death could be used to identify patients in need of more intensive medical support. The lack of fever in as many as one third of EVD cases may have implications for temperature-screening practices and case definitions.

Clinical features of suspected Ebola cases referred to the Moyamba ETC, Sierra Leone: challenges in the later stages of the 2014 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The last ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak has been the most important since 1976. EVD cases decreased drastically in Sierra Leone at the beginning of 2015. We aim to determine the clinical findings and evolution of patients admitted to an Ebola treatment center (ETC) during the epidemic's late phase. METHODS: We analyze retrospectively data of patients admitted to the Moyamba ETC (December 2014-March 2015). Patients were classified in EVD or non-EVD patients according to the results of Ebola virus real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (ZAIRE-RT-PCR). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included, 41.3 % were positive for ZAIRE-RT-PCR. More women (68 % vs 28 %, p = 0.001) were EVD-positive. More EVD patients had previous contact with an Ebola patient (74.2 % vs 36.3 %, p < 0.001). At admission, EVD patients were more likely to have fatigue (96.7 %, p < 0.001), diarrhea (67.7 %, p = 0.002), and muscle pain (61.3 %, p = 0.009); but only objective fevers in 35.5 % of EVD patients. The most reliable criteria for diagnosis were: contact with an Ebola patient plus three WHO symptoms (LR + =3.7, 95 % CI = 1.9-7.3), and positive contact (LR + =2.3, 95 % CI = 1.15-4.20). Only 45.2 % of EVD patients developed fevers during stay, but 75 % developed gastrointestinal symptoms. Non-EVD patients had gastrointestinal problems (33 %), respiratory conditions (26.6 %), and others such as malaria, HIV or tuberculosis with a mortality rate of 11.4 %. vs 58 % in EVD group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More non-EVD patients were admitted in the outbreak's late phases. The low percentage of initial fever highlights the need to emphasize the epidemiological information. EVD patients presented new symptoms getting worse and requiring closer follow-up. Diagnoses of non-EVD patients were diverse with a remarkable mortality, presenting a challenge for the health system.

Comparison of intranasal and intramuscular naloxone in opioid overdoses managed by ambulance staff: a double-dummy, randomised, controlled trial.

AIMS: To measure and evaluate clinical response to nasal naloxone in opioid overdoses in the pre-hospital environment. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled, double-dummy, blinded, non-inferiority trial, and conducted at two centres. SETTING: Participants were included by ambulance staff in Oslo and Trondheim, Norway, and treated at the place where the overdose occurred. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women age above 18 years with miosis, rate of respiration ≤8/min, and Glasgow Coma Score <12/15 were included. Informed consent was obtained through a deferred-consent procedure. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: A commercially available 1.4 mg/0.1 mL intranasal naloxone was compared with 0.8 mg/2 mL naloxone administered intramuscularly. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end-point was restoration of spontaneous respiration of ≥10 breaths/min within 10 minutes. Secondary outcomes included time to restoration of spontaneous respiration, recurrence of overdose within 12 hours and adverse events. FINDINGS: In total, 201 participants were analysed in the per-protocol population. Heroin was suspected in 196 cases. With 82% of the participants being men, 105 (97.2%) in the intramuscular group and 74 (79.6%) in the intranasal group returned to adequate spontaneous respiration within 10 minutes after one dose. The estimated risk difference was 17.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-26.1%) in favour of the intramuscular group. The risk of receiving additional naloxone was 19.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-29.7%) higher in the intranasal group. Adverse reactions were evenly distributed, except for drug withdrawal reactions, where the estimated risk difference was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.2%-13%) in favour of the intranasal group in a post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: Intranasal naloxone (1.4 mg/0.1 mL) was less efficient than 0.8 mg intramuscular naloxone for return to spontaneous breathing within 10 minutes in overdose patients in the pre-hospital environment when compared head-to-head. Intranasal naloxone at 1.4 mg/0.1 mL restored breathing in 80% of participants after one dose and had few mild adverse reactions.

NTNU intranasal naloxone trial (NINA-1) study protocol for a double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing intranasal 1.4 mg to intramuscular 0.8 mg naloxone for prehospital use.

INTRODUCTION: Intranasal (IN) naloxone is widely used to treat opioid overdoses. The advantage of nasal administration compared with injection lies in its suitability for administration by lay people as it is needless. Approved formulations of nasal naloxone with bioavailability of approximately 50% have only undergone trials in healthy volunteers, while off-label nasal sprays with low bioavailability have been studied in patients. Randomised clinical trials are needed to investigate efficacy and safety of approved IN naloxone in patients suffering overdose. This study investigates whether the administration of 1.4 mg naloxone in 0.1 mL per dose is non-inferior to 0.8 mg intramuscular injection in patients treated for opioid overdose. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Sponsor is the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The study has been developed in collaboration with user representatives. The primary endpoint is the restoration of spontaneous respiration≥10 breaths/min based on a sample of 200 opioid overdose cases. Double-dummy design ensures blinding, which will be maintained until the database is locked. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Norwegian Medicines Agency and Regional Ethics Committees (REC: 2016/2000). It adheres to the Good Clinical Practice guidelines as set out by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.Informed consent will be sought through a differentiated model. This allows for deferred consent after inclusion for patients who have regained the ability to consent. Patients who are unable to consent prior to discharge by emergency services are given written information and can withdraw at a later date in line with user recommendations. Metadata will be published in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology Open repository. Deidentified individual participant data will be made available to recipients conditional of data processor agreement being entered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Registry (2016-004072-22) and Clinicaltrials.gov Registry (NCT03518021).

Undertreatment of pain in the prehospital setting: a comparison between trauma patients and patients with chest pain.

The aim of this study was to evaluate pain treatment with morphine administered by emergency medical service personnel (EMSP) to patients with chest pain and patients with pain in extremities because of trauma. This is a retrospective chart review of 2021 patients with chest pain and 887 patients with trauma. Pain was assessed using a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale, and measured at the beginning and at the end of the ambulance care period. Trauma patients experienced more pain both at the start and at the end of the treatment than patients with chest pain [median 8 (interquartile ranges (IQR 6-9)) vs. 6 (IQR 4-7) and 4 (IQR 2-6) vs. 2 (IQR 0-4), P<0.001], but were treated with similar doses as in patients with chest pain [median 7.5 (IQR 5-10) and 5 (IQR 2.5-7.5), P=0.09]. Inadequate analgesia was frequently observed for both patient groups. The protocol was not fully utilized, suggesting that education in pharmacology and follow-up of the EMSP is required.