The effects of colchicine on hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of colchicine in the improvement of clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted on adult patients (>18 years) with severe COVID-19. The included patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to the colchicine (2 mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg twice daily for 7 days) or placebo group. Both groups received remdesivir and interferon beta-1b. The primary outcome of the study was to receive clinical response as ordinal scale of 1 or 2. Secondary outcomes were hospital complications and 28-day mortality. Between February and May 2021, 110 patients were included and 106 of them were analyzed. Baseline clinical characteristics and demographics were not significantly different. According to the ordinal scale, 30 patients in the control group (58.8%) responded to treatment within 7 days, while 35 patients (63.6%) in the colchicine group showed the same response (p = 0.61, odds ratio (OR) = 1.23, 95% CI [0.560-2.68]). On the 14th day, 87.3% of the colchicine group (n = 48) and 82.4% of the control group (n = 42) responded (p = 0.48, OR = 1.47, 95% CI [0.50.3-4.29]. In addition, 28-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, and hospital duration were not different between the groups (p = 0.99, 0.59, 0.06). Diarrhea and nausea were the major side effects dominant in the colchicine group. Colchicine showed no beneficial effects on clinical improvement and hospital complications in patients with COVID-19. Moreover, in case of prescription, the safety concerns of colchicine, specially gastrointestinal side effects, should be taken into account.

Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials.

Background: Ivermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed. Methods: We performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days. Results: Data for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%; RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15-1.45]; p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65-2.84]; p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.09]; p-value = 0.16). Conclusion: Our data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients; likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: www.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.

Pentoxifylline effects on hospitalized patients with COVID19: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Pentoxifylline (PTX) has broad-spectrum properties such as anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant, and antiviral effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PTX in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The recruited patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to the PTX group and the placebo group. The intervention group received PTX capsules at a dose of 400 mg three times a day for 10 days along with the national regimen, including interferon plus lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine. The primary outcome was the improvement of clinical scores. The secondary outcomes, on the other hand, were improvement in inflammatory and oxidative stress factors and hospital complications. From a total of 102 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 72 individuals completed the study and were analyzed. No significant differences were shown in demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. Clinical scores was not significant between the two groups (P = 0.31 and 0.07 for day 5 and 11, respectively). Although the mean serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and glutathione changed significantly after 5 days in the PTX group (P = 0.03 and p = 0.04), ICU admission, intubation, and hospital stay did not differ between the two groups. The results of our study did not show any superiority of PTX over placebo in improving the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Although PTX had a beneficial effect on IL-6 and showed an acceptable safety profile, it did not offer any clinical benefit for COVID-19 complications.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction: A randomized, double blind clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usage of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the recovery of patients with severe microsmia or anosmia induced by COVID-19. This was a prospective clinical trial on non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 (>18 years) who had severe microsmia or anosmia within two weeks. The subjects were randomly assigned to the mometasone furoate group (100 mcg twice daily) or sodium chloride group (0.9%); both groups also received olfactory training for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the improvement of the olfactory score at the end of the study. Visual analog scale (VAS) and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were used to assess primary outcome. A total of 80 patients were recruited, 77 of them completed the study and were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. The olfactory scores (based on VAS) at weekly intervals showed a significant difference between the two groups (P:0.318, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, respectively). The analyses also showed significant within-group differences from baseline. Nevertheless, the changes were not significant between the two groups (P: 0.444, 0.402, 0.267, 0.329). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the UPSIT results (p > 0.239). However, a significant between-group difference was noted in the severity of loss of smell (P < 0.001). Compared to olfactory training, mometasone furoate nasal spray combination with olfactory training showed a higher improvement in severe chronic anosmia by COVID-19.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria among patients who are suspected for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis-need for earlier identification of nontuberculosis mycobacteria.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we intended to find the prevalence of nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) among patients who are referred as suspected multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) cases to the only referral center in Iran. METHODS: All patients referred to our center in 2002-2006 as MDR-TB with histories of treatment with standard and CAT II World Health Organization regimens were included in the study. Sputum smear and culture for acid-fast bacilli were performed for all patients 3 times. Sputum polymerase chain reaction was also performed for all patients. Mycobacterial identification was performed via polymerase chain reaction and routine identification tests for all culture-positive cases. RESULTS: Of the 105 patients in the study, 12 (11.43%) were identified to have NTM infection. The identified mycobacteria were classified in order of prevalence as Chelonae (8 cases), Simiae (2 cases), Aloei (1 case), and Farcinogen (1 case). Based on radiologic findings, most of the cases demonstrated bilateral nodularity (83.3%) and also multifocal bronchiectasis (75%). Notably, cavitary lesions were present in 41.7% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, it is essential that such cases be identified before commencing MDR-TB treatment.