A Randomized Controlled Trial of Combined Ivermectin and Zinc Sulfate versus Combined Hydroxychloroquine, Darunavir/Ritonavir, and Zinc Sulfate among Adult Patients with Asymptomatic or Mild Coronavirus-19 Infection.

Introduction: Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine (HQ), and darunavir/ritonavir are widely prescribed as an oral treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection despite their uncertainty of clinical benefit. The objective is to determine the safety and the efficacies of two treatment regimens against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We conducted an open-labeled, randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy between a 3-day course of once-daily high-dose oral ivermectin plus zinc sulfate (Group A) and a combination of HQ, darunavir/ritonavir, and zinc sulfate (HQ + antiretroviral, Group B) for 5 days in asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study period was between December 2020 and April 2021. Results: Overall, 113 patients were randomized and analyzed (57 patients in Group A and 56 patients in Group B). The median duration to achieve the virological outcome of either undetected or cycle threshold (Ct) for N gene of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time polymerase chain reaction was 6 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3-6.7) versus 7 days (95% CI: 5.4-8.6) in Group A and Group B, respectively (P = 0.419) in the modified intention-to-treat population. All patients were discharged from hospital quarantine as planned. Two patients in Group A and one patient in Group B were considered clinically worsening and received 10 days of favipiravir treatment. There was no serious adverse event found in both groups. Conclusion: We demonstrated that both treatment regimens were safe, but both treatment regimens had no virological or clinical benefit. Based on this result and current data, there is no supporting evidence for the clinical benefit of ivermectin for coronavirus-19.

Oral sitafloxacin vs intravenous ceftriaxone followed by oral cefdinir for acute pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infection: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The conventional antibiotic regimen for community-acquired upper urinary tract infections with moderate severity in Thailand is parenteral ceftriaxone (CTRX) for several days followed by oral cephalosporin for 7-14 days. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral sitafloxacin (STFX) with that of intravenous CTRX followed by oral cefdinir (CFDN) for the therapy of acute pyelonephritis (APN) and complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). METHODS: This open-label, randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical trial included patients from nine centers across Thailand. Adult patients with APN or cUTI were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of oral STFX twice daily for 7-14 days, or 2 g of intravenous CTRX for several days followed by 100 mg of oral CFDN three times per day for another 4-12 days. RESULTS: A total of 289 adult patients with APN or cUTI (141 in the STFX group and 148 in the CTRX/CFDN group) were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and 211 patients (108 in the STFX group and 103 in the CTRX/CFDN group) were included in the per-protocol (PP) analysis. The baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were comparable. The causative pathogen in most patients with APN or cUTI was Escherichia coli. The clinical success rates at the end of treatment revealed the STFX regimen to be noninferior to the CTRX/CFDN regimen (86.6% vs 83.8% for ITT analysis and 97.2% vs 99.0% for PP analysis, respectively). Adverse events with mild-to-moderate severity were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Oral STFX is noninferior to intravenous CTRX followed by oral CFDN in adult patients with APN and cUTI. Lower rates of resistance compared to CTRX and/or CFDN and oral administration suggest STFX as a more attractive treatment option in this patient population.

Effectiveness and safety of polymyxin B for the treatment of infections caused by extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Colistimethate sodium (colistin) has been used in the treatment of infections caused by extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria in Thailand over the past decade, with a mortality rate of 50% and a nephrotoxicity rate of 40%. Polymyxin B has not been available in Thailand. We conducted a Phase II clinical study to determine the effectiveness and safety of polymyxin B, compared with colistin, for the treatment of XDR Gram-negative bacterial infections in Thai patients. METHODS: A total of 73 adult patients hospitalized at four participating tertiary care hospitals from January 2015 to December 2015 who had infections caused by XDR Gram-negative bacteria and had to receive colistin were enrolled in the study. Polymyxin B (100 mg/day) was administered intravenously every 12 hours for 7-14 days. RESULTS: Most of the patients were older males with comorbidities who had received antibiotics, particularly carbapenems, prior to receiving polymyxin B. More than half of the patients had pneumonia, and 51.5% of the infections were caused by XDR Acinetobacter baumannii, which was susceptible to colistin. Good clinical responses at the end of treatment were observed in 78.1% of cases, the overall 28-day mortality rate from all causes was 28.7%, the microbiological clearance of the targeted bacteria after therapy was 56.2% and nephrotoxicity occurred in 24.7% of cases. Neurotoxicity relating to reversible numbness was observed in two cases. CONCLUSION: Polymyxin B seems to be effective and safe for the treatment of XDR Gram-negative bacterial infections. Polymyxin B should be considered as an alternative to colistin for treatment of infections caused by XDR Gram-negative bacteria in Thai adult patients, especially those at risk of nephrotoxicity.

Low-dose versus standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai adults with HIV (LASA): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Thai patients with HIV have higher exposure to HIV protease inhibitors than do white people and dose reduction might be possible. We compared the efficacy of low-dose with standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai patients with HIV. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV plasma viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, an alanine aminotransferase concentration of less than 200 IU/L, and a creatinine clearance of at least 60 mL/min from 14 hospitals in Thailand. We excluded patients who had active AIDS-defining disease or opportunistic infections, had a history of an HIV viral load of 1000 copies per mL or more after 24 weeks of any ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based ART, used concomitant medications that could interact with the study drugs, were pregnant or lactating, had illnesses that might change the effect of the study drugs, or had a history of sensitivity to the study drugs. A biostatistician at the study coordinating centre randomly allocated patients (1:1) to switch the protease inhibitor for oral atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg or for atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg once daily, both with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at recommended doses. Randomisation was done with a minimisation schedule, stratified by recruiting centre, use of tenofovir, and use of indinavir as a component of the preswitch regimen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL at week 48, and we followed up patients every 12 weeks. Treatments were open label, the non-inferiority margin was -10%, and all patients who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01159223. FINDINGS: Between July 6, 2011, and Dec 23, 2013, we randomly assigned 559 patients: 279 to receive atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (low dose) and 280 to atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (standard dose). At week 48, 265 (97·1%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 267 (96·4%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL (difference 0·68; 95% CI -2·29 to 3·65). Seven (3%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 21 (8%) of 277 in the standard-dose group discontinued their assigned treatment (p=0·01). 46 (17%) of 273 participants in the low-dose group and 97 (35%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had total bilirubin grade 3 or higher toxicity (≥3·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: A switch to low-dose atazanavir should be recommended for Thai patients with well controlled HIV viraemia while on regimens based on boosted protease inhibitors. FUNDING: The National Health Security Office and Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding etiology score for predicting variceal and non-variceal bleeding.

AIM: To identify clinical parameters, and develop an Upper Gastrointesinal Bleeding (UGIB) Etiology Score for predicting the types of UGIB and validate the score. METHODS: Patients with UGIB who underwent endoscopy within 72 h were enrolled. Clinical and basic laboratory parameters were prospectively collected. Predictive factors for the types of UGIB were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses and were used to generate the UGIB Etiology Score. The best cutoff of the score was defined from the receiver operating curve and prospectively validated in another set of patients with UGIB. RESULTS: Among 261 patients with UGIB, 47 (18%) had variceal and 214 (82%) had non-variceal bleeding. Univariate analysis identified 27 distinct parameters significantly associated with the types of UGIB. Logistic regression analysis identified only 3 independent factors for predicting variceal bleeding; previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease (OR 22.4, 95% CI 8.3-60.4, P < 0.001), red vomitus (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.8-11.9, P = 0.02), and red nasogastric (NG) aspirate (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3-8.3, P = 0.011). The UGIB Etiology Score was calculated from (3.1 x previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease) + (1.5 x red vomitus) + (1.2 x red NG aspirate), when 1 and 0 are used for the presence and absence of each factor, respectively. Using a cutoff > or = 3.1, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in predicting variceal bleeding were 85%, 81%, 82%, 50%, and 96%, respectively. The score was prospectively validated in another set of 195 UGIB cases (46 variceal and 149 non-variceal bleeding). The PPV and NPV of a score > or = 3.1 for variceal bleeding were 79% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The UGIB Etiology Score, composed of 3 parameters, using a cutoff > or = 3.1 accurately predicted variceal bleeding and may help to guide the choice of initial therapy for UGIB before endoscopy.