Clinical Characteristics in the Acute Phase of COVID-19 That Predict Long COVID: Tachycardia, Myalgias, Severity, and Use of Antibiotics as Main Risk Factors, While Education and Blood Group B Are Protective.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for developing long COVID are not clearly established. The present study was designed to determine if any sign, symptom, or treatment of the acute phase, or personal characteristics of the patient, is associated with the development of long COVID. METHODS: A cohort study was carried out, randomly selecting symptomatic COVID-19 patients and not vaccinated. The severity of the acute illness was assessed through the number of compatible COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalizations, and the symptom severity score using a 10-point visual analog scale. RESULTS: After multivariate analysis, a severity score ≥8 (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), hospitalization (RR 2.1, 95%CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.039), myalgia (RR 1.9, 95%CI 1.08-3.6, p = 0.027), tachycardia (RR 10.4, 95%CI 2.2-47.7, p = 0.003), and use of antibiotics (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), was positively associated with the risk of having long COVID. Higher levels of education (RR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9, p = 0.029) and type positive B blood group (B + AB, RR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2-0.9, p = 0.044) were protective factors. The most important population attributable fractions (PAFs) for long COVID were myalgia (37%), severity score ≥8 (31%), and use of antibiotics (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies in diverse populations over time are needed to expand the knowledge that could lead us to prevent and/or treat long COVID.

Efficacy of the use of mefenamic acid combined with standard medical care vs. standard medical care alone for the treatment of COVID­19: A randomized double­blind placebo­controlled trial.

Mefenamic acid is a non­steroidal anti­inflammatory drug exhibiting a wide range of anti­inflammatory, antipyretic, analgesic and probable antiviral activities. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with mefenamic acid combined with standard medical care vs. standard medical care plus a placebo in ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19; nasal/oropharyngeal swabs reverse transcription­PCR test results positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). The present study is a phase II prospective, two­arm, parallel­group, randomized, double­blind placebo­controlled clinical trial which analyzed 36 patients. Two aspects were evaluated during the 14­day follow­up period: i) The time for reaching a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and ii) the last day of each COVID­19 symptom presentation. Adverse effects were evaluated. The clinical severity for all the patients in the study was mild (88.9%) and moderate (11.1%). The control (placebo) group achieved PASS on day 8.0±1.3, compared with day 4.4±0.8 in the mefenamic acid group (P=0.020, Kaplan­Meier analyses using log­rank tests). Patients that received mefenamic acid plus standard medical care had a ~16­fold higher probability of achieving PASS on day 8 (adjusted RR, 15.57; 95% CI, 1.22­198.71; P=0.035), compared with the placebo plus standard medical care group. All symptoms lasted for fewer days in the mefenamic acid group, compared with the placebo group; however, only the symptoms of headache (P=0.008), retro­orbital eye pain (P=0.049), and sore throat (P=0.029) exhibited statistically significant differences. The experimental treatment produced no severe adverse effects. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that the administration of mefenamic acid markedly reduced the symptomatology and time to reach PASS in ambulatory patients with COVID­19. Due to its probable antiviral effects and potent anti­inflammatory mechanisms, mefenamic acid may prove to be useful in the treatment of COVID­19, in combination with other drugs, including the new antivirals (remdesivir, molnupiravir, or favipiravir). However, future studies are also required to confirm these findings.

Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal rinses with neutral electrolyzed water prevents COVID-19 in front-line health professionals: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial in a general hospital in Mexico City.

The worldwide efforts that healthcare professionals are making in the COVID-19 pandemic is well known, and the high risk of illness and death that front-line staff experience on a daily basis is a reality, despite well-defined protocols for the use of personal protective equipment. In addition, it is well known that vaccination is still faraway to be achieved worldwide and that new variants are emerging, thus additional protective measures must be explored. A prospective open-label randomized controlled clinical trial was performed on front-line medical staff from the Dr. Enrique Cabrera General Hospital in México City to evaluate the effectiveness of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal rinses with a neutral electrolyzed water, known as SES, to reduce the risk of COVID-19 disease among front-line, not vaccinated medical staff. A total of 170 volunteers were enrolled and equally divided in a control group and SES group. All members of the trial wore the adequate personal protection equipment at all times while performing their duties, as required by standard COVID-19 safety protocols. Additionally, the SES group participants followed a prophylactic protocol with SES (oral and nasal rinses, three times a day for 4 weeks). All participants were monitored for COVID-19 symptoms and disease in a time-frame of 4 weeks and the incidence of illness per group was registered. The relative risk of disease, associated with each treatment was calculated. The presence of COVID-19-positive cases, in the group that received the nasal and oral rinses with SES was 1.2%, while in the group that did not do the SES rinses (control group), it was 12.7% (P=0.0039 and RR=0.09405; 95% CI of 0.01231-0.7183). The prophylactic protocol was demonstrated as a protective factor, in more than 90%, for developing the disease, and without adverse effects. Nasal and oral rinses with SES may be an efficient alternative to reinforce the protective measures against COVID-19 disease and should be further investigated. The present clinical trial was retrospectively registered in the Cuban public registry of clinical trials (RPCEC) database (March 16, 2021; PREVECOVID-19: RPCEC00000357).

Patient-Reported Health Outcomes After Treatment of COVID-19 with Nebulized and/or Intravenous Neutral Electrolyzed Saline Combined with Usual Medical Care Versus Usual Medical care alone: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial.

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Methods: A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group. Results: The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22-200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4. Conclusions: The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Trial registration: Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En.