Evaluating the efficacy and safety of a novel prophylactic nasal spray in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multi-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to devastate communities all over the world. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the test agent as a prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a population of high-risk healthcare workers. Methods The study was a multi-centre, prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Key eligibility criteria included absence of significant co-morbidity and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Participants were randomised to either the active agent nasal spray or placebo using computer generated random number tables. The nasal spray was administered 3 times daily over a 45 day course. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who tested positive for IgGS (anti-spike, immunoglobulin G specific to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2) at day 45. Results Between 16th April 2021 and 26th July 2021, 556 participants were analysed for the primary endpoint (275 Test; 281 Placebo). The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to placebo [36 cases (13.1%) Vs 97 cases (34.5%); OR 0.29 (95% CI; 0.18-0.45), p < 0.0001]. Fewer clinical symptoms were also seen in the test group [57 cases (17.6%) vs 112 cases (34.6%); OR 0.40, (95% CI; 0.27-0.59), p < 0.0001]. No harmful effects were associated with taking the test agent. Conclusion The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, with 62% fewer infections when compared to placebo. It was found to be safe and well tolerated and offers a novel treatment option for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Diabetic Retinopathy Is a Predictor of Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Google scholar for eligible studies through September 2021. The quality of selected articles was assessed using JBI checklist. Higgins and Thompson's I 2 statistic was used to see the degree of heterogeneity. Based on degree of heterogeneity, fixed or random effects model was used to estimate pooled effect using inverse variance method. Results were expressed as hazard ratios and odds ratios with 95% CIs. Results: After scrutinizing 18017 articles, data from ten relevant studies (seven prospective and three retrospective) was extracted. DR was significantly associated with DKD progression with a pooled HR of 2.42 (95% CI: 1.70-3.45) and a pooled OR of 2.62 (95% CI: 1.76-3.89). There was also a significant association between the severity of DR and risk of progression of DKD with a pooled OR of 2.13 (95% CI: 1.82-2.50) for nonproliferative DR and 2.56 (95% CI: 2.93-.33) for proliferative DR. Conclusion: Our study suggests that presence of DR is a strong predictor of risk of kidney disease progression in DKD patients. Furthermore, the risk of DKD progression increases with DR severity. Screening for retinal vascular changes could potentially help in prognostication and risk-stratification of patients with DKD.

Ten years' experience with alendronate for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Antiresorptive agents are widely used to treat osteoporosis. We report the results of a multinational randomized, double-blind study, in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were treated with alendronate for up to 10 years. METHODS: The initial three-year phase of the study compared three daily doses of alendronate with placebo. Women in the original placebo group received alendronate in years 4 and 5 and then were discharged. Women in the original active-treatment groups continued to receive alendronate during the initial extension (years 4 and 5). In two further extensions (years 6 and 7, and 8 through 10), women who had received 5 mg or 10 mg of alendronate daily continued on the same treatment. Women in the discontinuation group received 20 mg of alendronate daily for two years and 5 mg daily in years 3, 4, and 5, followed by five years of placebo. Randomized group assignments and blinding were maintained throughout the 10 years. We report results for the 247 women who participated in all four phases of the study. RESULTS: Treatment with 10 mg of alendronate daily for 10 years produced mean increases in bone mineral density of 13.7 percent at the lumbar spine (95 percent confidence interval, 12.0 to 15.5 percent), 10.3 percent at the trochanter (95 percent confidence interval, 8.1 to 12.4 percent), 5.4 percent at the femoral neck (95 percent confidence interval, 3.5 to 7.4 percent), and 6.7 percent at the total proximal femur (95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 to 9.1 percent) as compared with base-line values; smaller gains occurred in the group given 5 mg daily. The discontinuation of alendronate resulted in a gradual loss of effect, as measured by bone density and biochemical markers of bone remodeling. Safety data, including fractures and stature, did not suggest that prolonged treatment resulted in any loss of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effects of alendronate were sustained, and the drug was well tolerated over a 10-year period. The discontinuation of alendronate resulted in the gradual loss of its effects.