Michelle H. Biros

BACKGROUND: Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications. RESULTS: A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P = 0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P = 0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P = 0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.).

OBJECTIVE: A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. EVIDENCE: Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. CONCLUSIONS: We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of sedation, need for rescue sedation, rates of respiratory depression, and complications of droperidol, ziprasidone, and midazolam when used for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients requiring sedation for acute undifferentiated agitation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of agitated ED patients requiring emergent sedation was performed. Patients were randomized to receive droperidol 5 mg, ziprasidone 20 mg, or midazolam 5 mg intramuscularly. Interval measurements were made at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 minutes and included Altered Mental Status Scale (AMS) scores, oxygen saturations, and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were enrolled; 50 patients received droperidol, 46 received ziprasidone, and 48 received midazolam. Adequate sedation (mean AMS score <0) was achieved at 15 minutes in patients receiving midazolam (mean AMS score, -0.81) and 30 minutes for patients receiving droperidol (mean AMS score, -1.3) and ziprasidone (mean AMS score, -0.74). Rescue medication for sedation was necessary in 38 of 144 patients (droperidol, 5 of 50; ziprasidone, 9 of 46; midazolam, 24 of 48; p < 0.05). No cardiac dysrhythmias were identified in any treatment group. Respiratory depression that clinically required treatment with supplemental oxygen occurred in 21 of 144 patients (droperidol, 4 of 50; ziprasidone, 7 of 46; midazolam, 10 of 48; p = 0.20). No patients required endotracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Acutely agitated ED patients sedated with droperidol or ziprasidone required rescue medications to achieve adequate sedation less frequently than those sedated with midazolam. The onset of adequate sedation is delayed with ziprasidone, relative to the other agents.