Search

OBJECTIVE: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly used for long-term rhythm monitoring after ischaemic and cryptogenic stroke, with the goal of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and subsequent initiation of oral anticoagulation to reduce risk of adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need to determine the effectiveness of different rhythm monitoring strategies in this context. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of individuals with commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance in Optum Labs Data Warehouse who had incident ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke and no prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2021. Patients were stratified by rhythm monitoring strategy: ILR, long-term continuous external cardiac monitor (>48 hours to 30 days) or Holter monitor (≤48 hours). The primary outcome was risk-adjusted all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulation, bleeding, and costs. RESULTS: Among 48 901 patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, 9235 received an ILR, 29 103 long-term continuous external monitor and 10 563 Holter monitor only. Mean age was 69.9 (SD 11.9) years and 53.5% were female. During the 12-month follow-up period, patients who received ILRs compared with those who received long-term continuous external monitors had a higher odds of new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulant initiation (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.48). Compared with patients who received long-term continuous external monitors, those who received ILRs had similar 12-month mortality (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12), with approximately $13 000 higher costs at baseline (including monitor cost) and $2500 higher costs during 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world study of patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, ILR placement resulted in more diagnosis of AF and initiation of oral anticoagulation, but no difference in mortality compared with long-term continuous external monitors.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID. METHODS: We conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30-85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37-54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0-34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2-8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8-12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39-0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15-0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78-2·34) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe. FUNDING: Parsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Background Metformin has antiviral activity against RNA viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The mechanism appears to be suppression of protein translation via targeting the host mechanistic target of rapamycin pathway. In the COVID-OUT randomized trial for outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metformin reduced the odds of hospitalizations/death through 28 days by 58%, of emergency department visits/hospitalizations/death through 14 days by 42%, and of long COVID through 10 months by 42%. Methods COVID-OUT was a 2 × 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that assessed metformin, fluvoxamine, and ivermectin; 999 participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs on day 1 (n = 945), day 5 (n = 871), and day 10 (n = 775). Viral load was quantified using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results The mean SARS-CoV-2 viral load was reduced 3.6-fold with metformin relative to placebo (−0.56 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.05 to −.06; P =.027). Those who received metformin were less likely to have a detectable viral load than placebo at day 5 or day 10 (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI,.55 to.94). Viral rebound, defined as a higher viral load at day 10 than day 5, was less frequent with metformin (3.28%) than placebo (5.95%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI,.36 to 1.29). The metformin effect was consistent across subgroups and increased over time. Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed effect over placebo. Conclusions In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2, metformin significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral load, which may explain the clinical benefits in this trial. Metformin is pleiotropic with other actions that are relevant to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04510194. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Physical therapy (PT) and conservative care are recommended first-line treatments for musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. While essential to high-quality care, these solutions often do not provide immediate or sufficient pain relief. Traditional transcutaneous electronic nerve stimulation (TENS) devices are often recommended; however, there is mixed evidence behind their effectiveness. A novel approach called hybrid form impulse therapy (HFIT) incorporates a priming pulse with a traditional TENS pulse width and frequency. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFIT versus traditional TENS versus usual care among members of a digital MSK program. Patients and Methods: A three-arm RCT comparing HFIT versus TENS versus usual care was conducted. A total of 325 people with chronic back or knee pain who were members of a digital MSK program consisting of PT-guided exercise therapy, education, and coaching were randomized. Outcomes including pain, function, anxiety, and depression were examined at 1, 2, and 4 weeks (primary endpoint). Engagement was measured through exercise therapy (ET) sessions completed. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic generalized estimating equations were conducted. Results: Adjusted per-protocol results at 4 weeks showed significantly lower odds of achieving pain improvement for both TENS (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.92]) and usual care (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.72]) groups, compared to HFIT group. Both HFIT and usual care users had significantly higher engagement than the TENS users (p=0.026 and p=0.002, respectively). No adverse events were reported throughout the study. Conclusion: More participants of a digital MSK program who were randomized to the HFIT group experienced meaningful pain improvement at 4 weeks than participants who used TENS and usual care. HFIT can be an effective, non-pharmaceutical solution for relief as a complement to first-line treatments for patients with chronic back and knee pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]