Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Clin Case Rep ; 10(9): e6366, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2047503

ABSTRACT

Brucella is a rare pathogen of the lung. This intracellular organism can involve pleura in the sub-acute and chronic course of the disease. Here, we introduce an infrequent case of brucella pleurisy that presented to our hospital with chest pain.

2.
Iran J Pharm Res ; 20(4): 278-288, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847971

ABSTRACT

This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of Atazanavir/Ritonavir (ATZ/RTV) with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus ATZ/RTV or LPV/RTV for a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcomes were the reduced length of hospital stay and clinical recovery within 10 days from starting the intervention. The rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and mortality, the lengths of ICU stay and being intubated, recovery within 14 days, and the frequency of adverse reactions were considered as secondary outcomes. Among 132 enrolled patients, 62 cases in each arm were analyzed at the end of the intervention. Fifty-one (82.3%) cases in the ATZ/RTV arm versus 41 (66.1%) in the LPV/RTV arm were discharged within 10 days (P = 0.06). The median number of the intervention days was 6 (IQR: 5-8) in ATZ/RTV arm versus 7 (IQR: 6-9) in LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.01). The rate and length of ICU admission and intubation (P ≥ 0.99), rate of mortality (P = 0.49), and recovery within 14 days (P = 0.09) were not statistically different between groups. The most reported adverse reactions were nausea and vomiting that all cases were in the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.006). ATZ/RTV is better tolerated in comparison with LPV/RTV; however, it did not show more efficacy than LPV/RTV in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in this study.

3.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 77(3): 758-766, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545994

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sofosbuvir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Carbamates , Humans , Imidazoles , Pyrrolidines , SARS-CoV-2 , Sofosbuvir/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Valine/analogs & derivatives
4.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 68: 102653, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330622

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Foreign body aspiration (FBA) in adults may be asymptomatic or symptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms of Coronavirus infection and other causes of pneumonia. Regardless of the etiology of pneumonia, the first step in the treatment of FBA-associated pneumonia is to remove the foreign body from the airway. CASE PRESENTATION: A 32-year-old man was referred to our emergency department on October 26, 2020 with shortness of breath (SOB) and a cough. He was referred to the medical center with clinical suspicion of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), and his disease was treated considering COVID-19. Based on the persistence of his symptoms after discharge, he was referred to the hospital again, and the presence of a foreign body was confirmed by a rigid bronchoscopy, which was then removed. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: Our patient did not remember any history of aspirating solid particles, choking, or any other high-risk conditions associated with aspiration. Also, he had no symptoms with the exception of cough and SOB before the first admission. It means that asymptomatic FBA can be tolerated and go undiagnosed, particularly in adults, and manifests as a secondary complication, such as pneumonia. CONCLUSION: The FBA and other causal agents may mimic COVID-19 pneumonia. Consequently, FBA should be included in the COVID-19 differential diagnosis.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL