Multiple Candida strains causing oral infection in COVID-19 patients under corticosteroids and antibiotic therapy: An observational study.

Introduction: The occurrence of oral candidiasis (OC) is expected in patients with COVID-19, especially those with moderate to severe forms of infection who are hospitalized and may be on long-term use of broad-spectrum antibiotics or prolonged corticosteroid therapy. We aimed to characterize clinical conditions, the prevalence profile of Candida species, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with OC. Methods: In this observational study, oral samples were obtained from COVID-19 patients suspected of OC admitted to Razi teaching hospital. Patients with OC were monitored daily until discharge from the hospital. Species identification was performed by a two-step multiplex assay named YEAST PLEX, which identifies 17 clinically important uncommon to common yeast strains. Results: Among the 4133 patients admitted with COVID-19, 120 (2.90%) suffered from OC. The onset of signs and symptoms of OC in patients was, on average (2.92 ± 3.596 days) with a range (of 1-29 days). The most common OC presentation was white or yellow macules on the buccal surface or the tongue. In (39.16%) of patients suffering from OC multiple Candida strains (with two or more Candida spp.) were identified. The most common Candida species were C. albicans (60.57%), followed by C. glabrata (17.14%), C. tropicalis (11.42%), C. kefyr (10.83%) and C. krusei (3.42%). Notably, OC caused by multiple Candida strains was more predominant in patients under corticosteroid therapy (P <0.0001), broad-spectrum antibiotics therapy (P = 0.028), and those who used nasal corticosteroid spray (P <0.0001). The majority of patients who recovered from OC at the time of discharge were patients with OC by single Candida species (P = 0.049). Discussion: Use of corticosteroids and antimicrobial therapy in COVID-19 patients increases risk of OC by multiple Candida strains.

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.

Antibiotic use during the first 6 months of COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: A large-scale multi-centre study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Although antibiotics are ineffective against viral infections, epidemiological studies have revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the overuse of antibiotics and disruption of antimicrobial stewardship programmes. We investigated the pattern of antibiotic use during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study was designed to investigate the use of 16 broad-spectrum antibiotics in 12 medical centres. The rate of antibiotic use was calculated and reported based on the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) per 100 hospital bed-days. The bacterial co-infection rate was also reported. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Totally, 43,791 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were recruited in this study. It was found that 121.6 DDD of antibiotics were used per 100 hospital bed-days, which estimated that each patient received approximately 1.21 DDDs of antibiotics every day. However, the bacterial co-infections were detected only in 14.4% of the cases. A direct correlation was observed between the rate of antibiotic use and mortality (r[142] = 0.237, p = 0.004). The rate of antibiotic consumption was not significantly different between the ICU and non-ICU settings (p = 0.15). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: In this study, widespread antibiotic use was detected in the absence of the confirmed bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 patients. This over-consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics may be associated with increased mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, which can be an alarming finding.

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.

Evaluation of the effect of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a randomized double-blind clinical trial (DISCOVER).

BACKGROUND: The combination of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir has shown preliminary efficacy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in four open-label studies with small sample sizes. This larger trial aimed to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir to standard care improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 19 hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized to oral sofosbuvir/daclatasvir 400/60 mg once-daily or placebo in addition to standard of care. Patients were included if they had positive PCR or diagnostic chest CT, O2 saturation <95% and compatible symptoms. The primary outcome was hospital discharge within 10 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included mortality and time to clinical events. The trial is registered on the Iran Registry of Clinical Trials under IRCT20200624047908N1. RESULTS: Between July and October 2020, 1083 patients were randomized to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm (n = 541) or the placebo arm (n = 542). No significant difference was observed in the primary outcome of hospital discharge within 10 days, which was achieved by 415/541 (77%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 411/542 (76%) in the placebo arm [risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, P = 0.734]. In-hospital mortality was 60/541 (11%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm versus 55/542 (10%) in the placebo arm (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77-1.54, P = 0.615). No differences were observed in time to hospital discharge or time to in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant effect of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir versus placebo on hospital discharge or survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Side effects and Immunogenicity following administration of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in health care workers in Iran.

The Sputnik V is a COVID- 19 vaccine developed by the Gamalia institute of epidemiology and microbiology and released on August 11, 2020. We provided independent evidence on side effects and immunogenicity following the administration of the Sputnik V COVID-19 in Iran. In this observational study, the healthcare workers who were vaccinated with the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine within February and April 2021 were evaluated. Among a total of 13,435 vaccinated healthcare workers, we received 3236 self-declaration reports of Sputnik V associated adverse events with the mean age 39.32 ± 10.19 years old which 38.8% were men and 61.2% were women. Totally 68.8% of females versus 66.2% of males reported side effects after receiving the first dose and 31.2% of females versus 33.8% of males reported side effects after the second dose of vaccine. The most common side effect was a pain in the injection site (56.9%), fatigue (50.9%), body pain (43.9%), headache (35.7%), fever (32.9%), joint pain (30.3%), chilling (29.8%) and drowsiness (20.3%). Side effects of the vaccine were significantly more frequent in females and younger individuals. Among a total of 238 participants, more than 90% after the first and second dose of vaccine had a detectable level of SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibody and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody. Although the overall rate of adverse effects was higher than the interim results from randomized controlled trials, our findings support the manufacturer's reports about the high humoral immunogenicity of vaccine against COVID-19.

The efficacy of corticosteroids therapy in patients with moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter, randomized open-label trial in patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 treated with a range of possible treatment regimens. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimen groups at a ratio of 1:1:1. The primary outcome of this study was admission to the intensive care unit. Secondary outcomes were intubation, in-hospital mortality, time to clinical recovery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Between April 13 and August 9, 2020, a total of 336 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the 3 treatment regimens including group I (hydroxychloroquine stat, prednisolone, azithromycin and naproxen; 120 patients), group II (hydroxychloroquine stat, azithromycin and naproxen; 116 patients), and group III (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir (116 patients). The mean LOS in patients receiving prednisolone was 5.5 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population and 4.4 days in the per-protocol (PP) population compared with 6.4 days (mITT population) and 5.8 days (PP population) in patients treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir. RESULTS: The mean LOS was significantly lower in the mITT and PP populations who received prednisolone compared with populations treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (p = 0.028; p = 0.0007). We observed no significant differences in the number of deaths, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation between the Modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone and Lopinavir/Ritonavir, although these outcomes were better in the arm treated with prednisolone. The time to clinical recovery was similar in the modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin (P = 0.335; P = 0.055; p = 0.291; p = 0.098). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that therapeutic regimen (regimen I) with low dose prednisolone was superior to other regimens in shortening the length of hospital stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The steroid sparing effect may be utilized to increase the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the management of diabetic patients by decreasing the dosage.

Evaluation of the efficacy of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir in combination with ribavirin for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate disease compared with standard care: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic options are urgently needed to tackle the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Repurposing existing pharmaceuticals provides an immediate treatment opportunity. We assessed the efficacy of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir with ribavirin for treating patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-centre, randomized controlled trial in adults with moderate COVID-19 admitted to the Ghaem Shahr Razi Hospital in Mazandaran Province, Iran. Patients were randomly assigned to 400 mg sofosbuvir, 60 mg daclatasvir and 1200 mg ribavirin (intervention group) or to standard care (control group). The primary endpoint of this study was length of hospital stay. This study is registered by IRCT.ir under the ID: IRCT20200328046886N1. RESULTS: Between 20 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, 48 patients were recruited; 24 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 24 to the control group. The median duration of hospital stay was 6 days in both groups (P = 0.398). The number of ICU admissions in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin group was not significantly lower than the control group (0 versus 4, P = 0.109). There was no difference in the number of deaths between the groups (0 versus 3, P = 0.234). The cumulative incidence of recovery was higher in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin arm (Gray's P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial was too small to make definitive conclusions. There were trends in favour of the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin arm for recovery and lower death rates. However, there was an imbalance in the baseline characteristics between the arms. Larger randomized trials should be conducted to investigate this treatment further.