Antidepressant Drugs and COVID-19: A Review of Basic and Clinical Evidence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged the repurposing of existing drugs as a shorter development strategy in order to support clinicians with this difficult therapeutic dilemma. There is evidence to support the theory that some antidepressants can reduce concentrations of different cytokines in humans and animals and, recently, the antiviral activity of some antidepressants against SARS-CoV-2 has been reported. The aims of this narrative review are to evaluate the possible role of antidepressants in the treatment of COVID-19 infection and the possible benefits and risks of patients taking antidepressants for mental disorders and COVID-19 infection. A review was performed to analyse the current literature to identify the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. The electronic search was completed in MEDLINE and MedRxiv/BioRxiv for published literature and in ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. The results show some evidence from preclinical data and observational studies about the possible efficacy of some specific antidepressants for treating COVID-19 infection. In addition, two published phase II studies testing fluvoxamine showed positive results for clinical deterioration and hospitalization rate versus a placebo. Seven ongoing clinical trials testing fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and tramadol (as per its anti-inflammatory and antidepressant effect) are still in the early phases. Although the available evidence is limited, the sum of the antiviral and anti-inflammatory preclinical studies and the results from several observational studies and two phase II clinical trials provide the basis for ongoing clinical trials evaluating the possible use of antidepressants for COVID-19 infection in humans. Further investigations will be needed to support the possible use of antidepressants for this application.

New Psychoactive Substances Consumption in Opioid-Use Disorder Patients.

(1) Background: Since the beginning of the 21st century, the large number and wide chemical variety of new psychoactive substances (NPS) that enter the market every year has become a public health problem. Given the rapidity with which the drug market is changing, many NPS are not clinically investigated and their effects and health risks are unknown. Drug testing is a very useful tool for this purpose, but, unfortunately, it is not very widespread in individuals with opioid-use disorder under detoxification treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the use of illicit drugs and NPS in opioid-use disorder (OUD) patients on opioid agonist treatment. (2) Methods: A multicenter, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted at two addiction care services in Barcelona and Badalona, Spain. Urine samples were collected from OUD individuals attending these two centers, who anonymously donated a urine sample at the time of a periodical visit. Samples were analyzed by high-sensitivity gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-high -resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-HRMS). (3) Results: Out of the 187 collected and analyzed urine samples, 27.3% were positive for any type of NPS and 8.6% were positive for new synthetic opioids, including fentanyl and its derivatives (NSO). Other frequently detected substances were benzodiazepines in 46.0% of samples, antipsychotics in 27.8% of samples, or cocaine and cannabis in 23.5% of samples. (4) Conclusion: A wide number of NPS, including NSO, have been detected in urine samples from an OUD population. A lack of NPS detection in standard drug screening among drug users can hide the identification of a potential public health problem.

High-titre methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma as an early treatment for outpatients with COVID-19: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log10 copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log10 copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log10 copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log10 copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION: Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING: Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.

Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccination in Spain: A Case Study of Individual Autonomy in the Real World.

In Spain, 1.5 million essential < 60-year-old workers were vaccinated with a first AstraZeneca vaccine dose. After assessing the cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia associated to this vaccine, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) supported the administration of 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine with no age restrictions. Nevertheless, Spain decided not to administer the second dose of this vaccine to < 60-year-olds. The government sponsored a clinical trial (CombiVacS) to assess the immunogenicity response to a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine dose in adults primed with the AstraZeneca vaccine. The positive results backed the Public Health Commission and the Spanish Ministry of Health to offer the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as the booster. Nevertheless, regional public health authorities-responsible for administering vaccines-believed that, following the EMA's decision, an AstraZeneca booster dose should be given. The public confrontation of these 2 positions forced the Spanish Health Ministry to request the signature of an informed consent form to those individuals willing to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine booster and rejecting the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine dose. Eventually, it was decided that these essential workers could choose the vaccine but signing an informed consent form. All relevant information was posted on the Ministry of Health and regional health authorities' websites and provided to potential vaccine recipients at vaccination sites. Most individuals (≥ 75%) chose the AstraZeneca vaccine: perhaps because they likely trusted the EMA more than the CombiVacS results. This unprecedented and massive exercise of individual autonomy about the choice of COVID-19 vaccines from 2 different platforms has shown that adequately informed persons can autonomously weigh their options, regardless of government decisions. Exercising individual autonomy may contribute to the success of future COVID-19 booster vaccination campaigns.

Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults With Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exist. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be efficacious for outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain, between 17 March and 26 May 2020. Patients recently diagnosed with <5-day of symptom onset were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1 followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or usual care. Outcomes were reduction of viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, disease progression up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD, 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 log10 copies/mL (SD, 1.82), and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs -1.41 log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs -3.44). Treatment did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1% control vs 5.9% intervention) nor shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs 10 days, intervention). No relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild COVID-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.

Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry and High-Sensitivity Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Screening of Classic Drugs and New Psychoactive Substances and Metabolites in Urine of Consumers.

The use of the new psychoactive substances is continuously growing and the implementation of accurate and sensible analysis in biological matrices of users is relevant and fundamental for clinical and forensic purposes. Two different analytical technologies, high-sensitivity gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-HRMS) were used for a screening analysis of classic drugs and new psychoactive substances and their metabolites in urine of formed heroin addicts under methadone maintenance therapy. Sample preparation involved a liquid-liquid extraction. The UHPLC-HRMS method included Accucore™ phenyl Hexyl (100 × 2.1 mm, 2.6 µm, Thermo, USA) column with a gradient mobile phase consisting of mobile phase A (ammonium formate 2 mM in water, 0.1% formic acid) and mobile phase B (ammonium formate 2 mM in methanol/acetonitrile 50:50 (v/v), 0.1% formic acid) and a full-scan data-dependent MS2 (ddMS2) mode for substances identification (mass range 100-1000 m/z). The GC-MS method employed an ultra-Inert Intuvo GC column (HP-5MS UI, 30 m, 250 µm i.d, film thickness 0.25 µm; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and electron-impact (EI) mass spectra were recorded in total ion monitoring mode (scan range 40-550 m/z). Urine samples from 296 patients with a history of opioid use disorder were examined. Around 80 different psychoactive substances and/or metabolites were identified, being methadone and metabolites the most prevalent ones. The possibility to screen for a huge number of psychotropic substances can be useful in suspected drug related fatalities or acute intoxication/exposure occurring in emergency departments and drug addiction services.

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Prevention of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Current strategies for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are limited to nonpharmacologic interventions. Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a postexposure therapy to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but definitive evidence is lacking. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving asymptomatic contacts of patients with polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-confirmed Covid-19 in Catalonia, Spain. We randomly assigned clusters of contacts to the hydroxychloroquine group (which received the drug at a dose of 800 mg once, followed by 400 mg daily for 6 days) or to the usual-care group (which received no specific therapy). The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 within 14 days. The secondary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined by symptoms compatible with Covid-19 or a positive PCR test regardless of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed for up to 28 days. RESULTS: The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care. Results were similar in the hydroxychloroquine and usual-care groups with respect to the incidence of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 (5.7% and 6.2%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.42]). In addition, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than usual care (18.7% and 17.8%, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than in the usual-care group (56.1% vs. 5.9%), but no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient. (Funded by the crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono and others; BCN-PEP-CoV2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04304053.).