Utilidad de los enjuagues con povidona yodada y peróxido de hidrógeno en pacientes con COVID-19 / Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19

Introducción: La povidona yodada y el peróxido de hidrógeno podrían ser eficaces contra el SARS-CoV-2. Métodos: Estudio observacional de seguimiento prospectivo (EPA-AS) en 88 pacientes (43±17 años, 55% varones) con SARS-CoV-2 en muestras nasofaríngeas (RT-PCR). Treinta y uno recibieron enjuagues/gargarismos con povidona yodada cada 8h 2 días consecutivos, 17 con la misma pauta de peróxido de hidrógeno y 40 controles sin enjuagues. Se repitió PCR a los 3, 11 y 17 días. Resultados: Tras la intervención no hubo diferencias en la carga viral: povidona yodada (4,3±2,7 copias/ml), peróxido de hidrógeno (4,6±2,9 copias/ml), controles (4,4±3,0 copias/ml). El porcentaje de pacientes con una 2.ª PCR negativa fue 27% povidona yodada, 23% peróxido de hidrógeno y 32% controles; en la 3.ª PCR 62%, 54% y 58% respectivamente y en la 4.ª PCR, 81%, 75% y 81%. Conclusión: Nuestros resultados no apoyan la utilidad de los enjuagues de estos 2 antisépticos en pacientes con COVID-19.(AU)

Introduction: Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A “non-interventional trial” in 88 patients (43±17 yrs, 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. PCR were repeated at 3, 11 and 17 days. Results: After intervention the viral load (Log10copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3±2.7copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6±2.9copies/ml; p=0.40) and controls (4.4±3.0copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% and 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% and 81%. Conclusion: Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.(AU)

[Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19]. / Utilidad de los enjuagues con povidona yodada y peróxido de hidrógeno en pacientes con COVID-19.

Introduction: Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43 ± 17 yrs, 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8 h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. PCR were repeated at 3, 11 and 17 days. Results: After intervention the viral load (Log 10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3 ± 2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6 ± 2.9 copies/ml; p = 0.40) and controls (4.4 ± 3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% and 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% and 81%. Conclusion: Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43±17 yrs., 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. Were repeated PCR in 3, 11 and 17 days. RESULTS: After intervention the viral load (Log10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3±2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6±2.9 copies/ml; p=0.40) and controls (4.4±3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% y 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% y 81%. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma treatment for patients of 80 years and older with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Older patients, frequently with multiple comorbidities, have a high mortality from COVID-19 infection. Convalescent plasma (CP) is a therapeutic option for these patients. Our objective is to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of CP treatment in this population group. METHODS: Forty one patients over 80 years old with COVID-19 pneumonia received CP added to standard treatment, 51.2% with high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers and 48.8% with low titers. Median time between the onset of symptoms and the infusion of plasma was 7 days (IQR 4-10). A similar group of 82 patients who received only standard treatment, during a period in which CP was not available, were selected as a control group. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 26.8% for controls and 14.6% for CP patients (P = 0.131) and ICU admission was 8.5% for controls and 4.9% for CP patients (P = 0.467). Mortality tended to be lower in the high-titer group (9.5%) than in the low-titer group (20%), and in patients transfused within the first 7 days of symptom onset (10%) than in patients transfused later (19.1%), although the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.307 and P = 0.355 respectively). There was no difference in the length of hospitalization. No significant adverse events were associated with CP treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment in patients over 80 years old with COVID-19 pneumonia was well tolerated but did not present a statistically significant difference in hospital mortality, ICU admission, or length of hospitalization. The results should be interpreted with caution as only half the patients received high-titer CP and the small number of patients included in the study limits the statistical power to detect significant differences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CEIm Cantabria # 2020.127.