Comparative effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy versus monotherapy in patients with ischemic stroke.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of aspirin-clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin or clopidogrel antiplatelet monotherapy (AM) in patients with ischemic stroke. METHODS: It was a single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study of medical records of ischemic stroke patients admitted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between January 2015 and October 2019. The primary endpoints were ischemic stroke recurrence, rehospitalization, and all-cause mortality between DAPT and AM. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses were employed in univariate and multivariate time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: The median time to recurrence of ischemic stroke was 15.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.586-23.01) for DAPT and 20.4 months (95% CI, 9.872-30.928) for the AM. The median survival time until all-cause mortality was 8.0 months (95% CI, 2.893-13.107) for DAPT and 14.1 months (95% CI, 8.173-19.97) for the AM. No statistically significant reductions in the instantaneous risks of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.72; p=0.54), re-hospitalization (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59-1.48; p= 0.77), and mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48-2.26; p=0.92) were found between the DAPT and AM groups. CONCLUSION: The DAPT was not superior to AM in reducing recurrence and mortality events in patients with ischemic stroke. Rehospitalization due to the sequelae of the composite of stroke, angina, and myocardial infarction was higher in the DAPT group.

Early dexamethasone use as a protective measure in non-mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study.

Dexamethasone showed mortality benefits in patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal timing for dexamethasone initiation to prevent COVID-19 consequences such as respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) is debatable. As a result, the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of early dexamethasone initiation in non-MV critically ill patients with COVID19. This is a multicenter cohort study including adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and received systemic dexamethasone between March 2020 and March 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the timing for dexamethasone initiation (early vs. late). Patients who were initiated dexamethasone within 24 h of ICU admission were considered in the early group. The primary endpoint was developing respiratory failure that required MV; other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) was used based on the patient's SOFA score, MV status, prone status, and early use of tocilizumab within 24 h of ICU admission. Among 208 patients matched using propensity score, one hundred four patients received dexamethasone after 24 h of ICU admission. Among the non-mechanically ventilated patients, late use of dexamethasone was associated with higher odds of developing respiratory failure that required MV (OR [95%CI]: 2.75 [1.12, 6.76], p = 0.02). Additionally, late use was associated with longer hospital length of stay (LOS) (beta coefficient [95%CI]: 0.55 [0.22, 0.88], p = 0.001). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were higher in the late group; however, they were not statistically significant. In non-mechanically ventilated patients, early dexamethasone use within 24 hours of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19 could be considered a proactive protective measure.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Enhancing the Antifungal Activity and Ophthalmic Transport of Fluconazole from PEGylated Polycaprolactone Loaded Nanoparticles.

Fungal eye infections are caused mainly by an eye injury and can result in serious eye damage. Fluconazole (FLZ), a broad-spectrum antifungal agent, is a poorly soluble drug with a risk of hepatotoxicity. This work aimed to investigate the antifungal activity, ocular irritation, and transport of FLZ-loaded poly (ε-caprolactone) nanoparticles using a rabbit eye model. Three formulation factors affecting the nanoparticle's size, zeta potential, and entrapment efficiency were optimized utilizing the Box-Behnken design. Morphological characteristics and antifungal activity of the optimized nanoparticles were studied. The optimized nanoparticles were loaded into thermosensitive in situ hydrogel and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) hydrogel ophthalmic formulations. The rheological behavior, in vitro release and in vivo corneal transport were investigated. Results revealed that the percentage of poly (ε-caprolactone) in the nanoparticle matrix, polymer addition rate, and mixing speed significantly affected the particle size, zeta potential, and entrapment efficiency. The optimized nanoparticles were spherical in shape and show an average size of 145 nm, a zeta potential of -28.23 mV, and a FLZ entrapment efficiency of 98.2%. The antifungal activity of FLZ-loaded nanoparticles was significantly higher than the pure drug. The developed ophthalmic formulations exhibited a pseudoplastic flow, prolonged the drug release and were found to be non-irritating to the cornea. The prepared FLZ pegylated nanoparticles were able to reach the posterior eye segment without eye irritation. As a result, the developed thermosensitive in situ hydrogel formulation loaded with FLZ polymeric nanoparticles is a promising drug delivery strategy for treating deep fungal eye infections.

Evaluation of zinc sulfate as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two center propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The role of zinc in critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia were retrospectively assessed for zinc use from March 1, 2020 until March 31, 2021. After propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria, we assessed the association of zinc used as adjunctive therapy with the 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complication (s) during ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included, 82 patients received zinc. Patients who received zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy have a lower 30-day mortality (HR 0.52, CI 0.29, 0.92; p = 0.03). On the other hand, the in-hospital mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (HR 0.64, CI 0.37-1.10; p = 0.11). Zinc sulfate use was associated with a lower odds of acute kidney injury development during ICU stay (OR 0.46 CI 0.19-1.06; p = 0.07); however, it did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of zinc sulfate as an additional treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients may improve survival. Furthermore, zinc supplementation may have a protective effect on the kidneys.

Ascorbic acid as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a propensity score matched study.

Ascorbic acid represents an appealing option for clinicians to utilize in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic due to its proposed clinical efficacy, relative safety, and low cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using ascorbic acid in supplemental doses as adjunctive therapy for patients critically ill with COVID-19. This was a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study. All critically ill adult patients admitted to ICU with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1st and December 31st, 2020, were included in the final analysis. The study was conducted at two large governmental tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The purpose was to investigate the clinical outcomes of low-dose ascorbic acid as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 after propensity score matching using baseline severity scores, systematic use of corticosteroids, and study centers. A number of 739 patients were included in this study, among whom 296 patients were included after propensity score matching. There was no association between the administration of ascorbic acid and in-hospital mortality or the 30-day mortality [OR (95% CI) 0.77 (0.47, 1.23), p value = 0.27 and OR (95% CI) 0.73 (0.43, 1.20), p value = 0.21, respectively]. Using ascorbic acid was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis compared with the non-ascorbic-acid group [6.1% vs. 13% respectively; OR (95% CI) 0.42 (0.184, 0.937), p value = 0.03]. Low dose of ascorbic acid as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with mortality benefits, but it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of thiamine as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two-center propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thiamine is a precursor of the essential coenzyme thiamine pyrophosphate required for glucose metabolism; it improves the immune system function and has shown to reduce the risk of several diseases. The role of thiamine in critically ill septic patient has been addressed in multiple studies; however, it's role in COVID-19 patients is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of thiamine as an adjunctive therapy on mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study for critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID19. All patients aged 18 years or older admitted to ICUs between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with positive PCR COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. We investigated thiamine use as an adjunctive therapy on the clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients after propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 738 critically ill patients with COVID-19 who had been admitted to ICUs were included in the study. Among 166 patients matched using the propensity score method, 83 had received thiamine as adjunctive therapy. There was significant association between thiamine use with in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.19-0.78; P value = 0.008) as well as the 30-day mortality (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.18-0.78; P value = 0.009). Moreover, patients who received thiamine as an adjunctive therapy were less likely to have thrombosis during ICU stay [OR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.04-0.88), P value = 0.03]. CONCLUSION: Thiamine use as adjunctive therapy may have potential survival benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further interventional studies are required to confirm these findings.