ABSTRACT
Since the outbreak in December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic virus has been a major public health problem in all countries of the world. The virus is transmitted by inhalation of respiratory droplets from the patient or asymptomatic carrier and is highly contagious. The clinical disease in children is similar to any acute respiratory infection with predominant upper respiratory symptoms, but occasionally can progress to pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure. The disease is milder in children than in adults, with low mortality, and it appears that infants and young children have a somewhat more severe clinical course. Diagnosis is made by detecting the virus from respiratory samples (mainly nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs) using polymerase chain reaction. Treatment is usually symptomatic, and in severe and critical forms, the use of one of the antiviral drugs (lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine) may be consideredCopyright © 2020 Croatian Paediatric Society. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome)-related corona viruses was first of all discovered 18 years ago in china from bats. Previously some study shown that bats are infected to animal kingdom and from animal this virus spread in human. As per report of identification and characterization of novel corona virus which is responsible for epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome in human beings. First of all this protein of novel SARS are seen in Wuhan city of, China in January 2020.Copyright © 2019, Advanced Scientific Research. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: Infancy is an important developmental period when the human microbiome is shaped. Given links between young age at antiretroviral treatment (ART) initiation and smaller persisting viral reservoirs, we hypothesized that earlier ART initiation may leave distinct microbial signatures in the oral cavity detectable in children living with HIV (CLWH). Method(s): Oral swab samples were collected from 477 CLWH and 123 children without HIV at two sites in Johannesburg, South Africa. CLWH had started ART < 2 years of age with 60% starting < 6 months of age. Most were wellcontrolled on ART at a median of 10 years of age when the swab was collected. Controls were age-matched and recruited from the same communities. Sequencing of the V4 amplicon of the 16S rRNA gene was done using established protocols. DADA2, decontam, and phyloseq were used for sequence inference, contaminant removal, and subsequent analyses. All p-values were adjusted for multiple testing using Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method. Statistical analyses were performed with R. Result(s): CLWH had lower alpha diversity than uninfected children (Shannon index p< 0.0001). Genus-level abundances of Granulicatella, Streptococcus and Gemella were greater and Neisseria and Haemophilus were less abundant among CLWH compared to uninfected children. Associations were strongest among boys. There was no evidence of attenuation of associations with earlier ART initiation. In fact, decreased bacterial diversity and differences in taxa abundances in CLWH versus controls were consistent regardless of whether ART was started before or after 6 months of age. Shifts in genus-level taxa abundances relative to uninfected controls were most marked in children on regimens containing lopinavir/ritonavir;with few shifts seen if on regimens containing efavirenz. Conclusion(s): A distinct profile of less diverse oral bacterial taxa was observed in school-age CLWH on ART versus uninfected age-matched children suggesting persisting interference of HIV and its treatments on microbiota in the mouth. Any effects of earlier ART initiation were not detectable at this age. Studies of treated adults with HIV have observed similar shifts in taxa abundances. Oral microbiota have been linked to salivary cytokine levels with associations between Granulicatella and IL-8 and Neisseria and IL-6. Declines in Neisseria abundances in oral samples have been associated with more severe outcomes in influenza and COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background: A number of research articles has been published evaluating safety and efficacy of drugs against COVID-19. Objective(s): This study was undertaken to collate and review the information regarding common proposed antiviral drugs for easy reference. Method(s): The literature search was done using terms like severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV or SARSCoV or COVID-19 in combination with drugs or treatment or pharmacotherapy using PubMed and google scholar to identify relevant articles. Result(s): Despite showing good early results, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir has not shown clinical benefit in randomized controlled trials. However lopinavir in combination with other drugs specially interferon is being investigated. Remdesivir has shown positive effect in terms of clinical improvement and continued to being investigated alone or in combination with other drugs. Favipiravir has shown mixed results and more data from adequately powered study is needed to prove its efficacy. Conclusion(s): Many drugs which showed positive effect in initial studies could not replicate the same benefit in large randomized controlled trials. There is need to evaluate efficacy and safety of drugs based on high quality evidence before allowing it to be used in general population.
ABSTRACT
This research was been adopted to study the relationship between Covid and some necessary biological factors in human body and how these factors affected, This studying included three stages (Sever - Moderate - Mild) it was studied 20 patient for every stage and monitor the biological factors during infection and after infection.Copyright © 2023, Codon Publications. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Three antiviral drugs, including interferon alpha (aerosol inhalation), lopinavir/ritonavir (oral medication), and ribavirin (intravenous infusion), are recommended by Diagnosis and Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (revised version, the 5th ed), which was issued by the National Health Commission of People's Republic of China and National Administration of traditional Chinese Medicine. In addition, clinical trials on a new antiviral drug-remdesivir which is not yet on the market has also been launched in China. Medication safety related data on treatment for infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, middle respiratory syndrome coronavirus, human immunodeficiency virus, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin, safety data of remdesivir in animal experiment, phase I clinical trials and clinical trials of treating Ebola virus infection, and preliminary reports of treatment in novel coronavirus pneumonia were briefly reviewed, aiming to provide evidence for clinical safety medication.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
This note is prepared by the authors of a recent publication on shared genetic architecture of drug response based on summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to propose a drug repurposing approach for the treatment of coronavirus COVID-19. The authors proposed that in silico studies may be preceded by analyzing shared genetic architecture of drug response based on existing GWAS.Copyright © 2020, Health Biotechnology and Biopharma.
ABSTRACT
In December 2019, the endemic of COVID-19 broke out in Wuhan, China. The disease is highly contagious and quickly spreads at home and abroad, causing great concern. However, there are no definite effective antiviral drugs in clinical use. Given the urgency of the COVID-19 outbreak, based on the diagnosis and treatment recommendation and relavant researches, this article describes the optional antiviral drugs such as remdesivir, oseltamivir, arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon-alpha to provide a reference for treatment of COVID-19.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the efficacy of the combination of abidol, lopinavir/ritonavir plus recombinant interferon alpha-2b (rIFNalpha-2b) and the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir plus rIFNalpha-2b for patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang province. Method(s): A multicenter prospective study was carried out to compare the efficacy of triple combination antiviral therapy and dual combination antiviral therapy in 15 medical institutions of Zhejiang province during January 22 to February 16, 2020. All patients were treated with rIFNalpha-2b (5 million U, 2 times/d) aerosol inhalation, in addition 196 patients were treated with abidol (200 mg, 3 times/d) + lopinavir/ritonavir (2 tablets, 1 time/12 h) (triple combination group) and 41 patients were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (2 tablets, 1 time/12 h) (dual combination group). The patients who received triple combination antiviral therapy were further divided into three subgroups: <48 h, 3-5 d and >5 d according the time from the symptom onset to medication starting. The therapeutic efficacy was compared between triple combination group and dual combination group, and compared among 3 subgroups of patients receiving triple combination antiviral therapy. SPSS 17.0 software was used to analyze the data. Result(s): The virus nucleic acid-negative conversion time in respiratory tract specimens was (12.2+/-4.7) d in the triple combination group, which was shorter than that in the dual combination group [(15.0+/-5.0) d] (t=6.159, P<0.01). The length of hospital stay in the triple combination group [12.0 (9.0, 17.0) d] was also shorter than that in the dual combination group [15.0 (10.0, 18.0) d] (H=2.073, P<0.05). Compared with the antiviral treatment which was started within after the symptom onset of in the triple combination group, the time from the symptom onset to the viral negative conversion was 13.0 (10.0, 17.0), 17.0 (13.0, 22.0) and 21.0 (18.0, 24.0) d in subgroups of 48 h, 3-5 d and >5 d, respectively (Z=32.983, P<0.01), while the time from antiviral therapy to viral negative conversion was (11.8+/-3.9), (13.5+/-5.1) and (11.2+/-4.3) d, respectively(Z=6.722, P<0.05). Conclusion(s): The triple combination antiviral therapy of abidol, lopinavir/litonavir and rIFNalpha-2b shows shorter viral shedding time and shorter hospitalization time, compared with the dual combination antiviral therapy;and the earlier starting triple combination antiviral therapy will result in better antiviral efficacy.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel coronavirus, started in livestock within the markets of Wuhan, China and was consequently spread around the world. The virus has been rapidly spread worldwide due to the outbreak. COVID-19 is the third serious coronavirus outbreak in less than 20 years after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012. The novel virus has a nucleotide identity closer to that of the SARS coronavirus than that of the MERS coronavirus. Since there is still no vaccine, the main ways to improve personal immunity against this disease are prophylactic care and self-resistance including an increased personal hygiene, a healthy lifestyle, an adequate nutritional intake, a sufficient rest, and wearing medical masks and increasing time spent in well ventilated areas. There is a need for novel antivirals that are highly efficient and economical for the management and control of viral infections when vaccines and standard therapies are absent. Herbal medicines and purified natural products have the potential to offer some measure of resistance as the development of novel antiviral drugs continues. In this review, we evaluated 41 articles related to herbal products which seemed to be effective in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.Copyright © 2021 The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Objective. To review and summarize literature data in studies of safety of the drug products used for the pathogenetic treatment of COVID-19. Materials and methods. As the first stage of monitoring the drug's safety, which are used in the treatment of COVID-19 in Russia, a systematic review of studies of the drug's safety profiles was carried out: Mefloquine, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, tocilizumab, olokizumab, baricitinib in the international databases Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library for the period 2019-2021. Results. The review included 51 articles that met the selection criteria. Based on the results of the review, it can be concluded that the safety profile (frequency, severity and severity) of most drugs repurposed for COVID-19 corresponds to those for the registered indications. At the same time, according to world experience, there is an increase in the number of reports of adverse drug reactions of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which is provoked by the active use of these drugs for combination therapy. Conclusions. According to the literature, a high incidence of adverse events was noted in hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine and azithromycin. Subsequent analysis and comparison of the safety profiles of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine and azithromycin with data from the national automated information system (AIS) database of Roszdravnadzor is a necessary component of effective and safe pharmacotherapy for COVID-19.Copyright © 2021, Interregional Association for Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: Today, various drugs have been investigated as the primary or complementary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has been used as a mucolytic in pulmonary diseases. This drug apparently contributes to the retrieval of the intracellular antioxidant system. Objective(s): This study aimed to determine the efficacy of NAC in severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Method(s): This single-blinded randomized controlled phase III clinical trial included 40 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (based on polymerase chain reaction) admitted to the Shahid Mohammadi Hospital's ICU, Bandar Abbas, Iran, in 2020. All cases had severe COVID-19. They were allocated randomly to two equal groups. Patients in the control group received standard drug therapy based on the treatment protocol of the national COVID-19 committee, while those in the NAC group received a single dose of intravenous NAC (300 mg/kg) upon admission to the ICU in addition to standard drug treatment. Clinical status and laboratory tests were done on admission to the ICU and then 14 days later or at discharge without knowing the patient grouping. Result(s): The two groups were comparable regarding age, gender, and other baseline laboratory and clinical parameters. At the final evaluation, respiratory rate (21.25 +/- 4.67 vs. 27.37 +/- 6.99 /min) and D-dimer (186.37 +/- 410.23 vs. 1339.04 +/- 2183.87 ng/mL) were significantly lower in the NAC group (P = 0.004 and P = 0.030, respectively). Also, a lower percentage of patients in the NAC group had lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) <= 245 U/L (0% vs. 25%, P = 0.047). Although the length of ward and ICU stay was shorter in the NAC group than in controls, the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.598 and P = 0.629, respectively). Mortality, on the other hand, was 75% in the control group and 50% in the NAC group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.102). Concerning the change in the study parameters, only the decrease in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was significantly higher with NAC (P = 0.042). The intubation and mechanical ventilation rates were higher, while oxygen with mask and nasal oxygen rates were lower with NAC, but the difference was statistically insignificant. Conclusion(s): Based on the current research, NAC is related to a significant decrease in RR, D-dimer, and DBP in severe COVID-19. Also, LDH was significantly lower in the NAC group than in the controls. More research with larger sample sizes is needed to validate the current study results.Copyright © 2023, Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Background: COVID-19 is an infectious entity caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There have been reported risk factors like chronic airway entities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since asthma is a respiratory disease, it could be found as a risk factor to develop severe COVID-19 disease. However, most of the evidence reveals that asthma isn't associated with higher severity or worse prognosis. Madrid has been one of the most affected regions in the world during the pandemic. La Paz University Hospital has developed one of the largest cohorts in Europe. We used this data and described several characteristics around COVID-19 disease in asthma patients. Method(s): We collected data by individual review of the patients' electronic clinical records (DXC-HCIS, Healthcare Information System). Then we describe the general characteristics of the patients, their asthma, and COVID-19 evolution. The analyzed data includes general demographics, asthma classification (T2 or no T2), basal treatment, and pre-COVID-19 asthma control (by ACT and exacerbations). We studied acute COVID-19 disease symptoms and treatment, the presence of pneumonia, thromboembolism, the need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. Result(s): The total number of patients studied was 173, the majority were women (67%) with an average age of 55 and type 2 asthma (67%) which was controlled before COVID-19 disease (ACT median was 25, the median of exacerbations was 0). The majority used the combination of long-acting beta 2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS+LABA) for asthma treatment (67%). Only 2 patients were treated with omalizumab, which was discontinued during COVID-19 disease. The most frequent symptoms were cough and dyspnea (80% and 75% respectively). 4% of patients presented thromboembolism. 60% had pneumonia. 60% required hospitalization, 11% of whom died due to COVID-19 complications. The most common treatment was hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (75% and 45% respectively), followed by oral corticosteroids (15%), lopinavir/ritonavir (8%), tocilizumab (5%), and remdesivir (2%). Conclusion(s): This cohort represents asthmatic patients in La Paz University Hospital. We observed that the proportion of hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality due to COVID-19 was similar as described in previous studies and therefore no different from non-asthmatic patients. The characteristics presented in this study help us better understand the complications of asthmatic patients thanks to one of the largest COVID-19 cohorts in Europe.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To explore the occurrence of adverse reactions of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Method(s): The medical records of patients with COVID-19 who received LPV/r treatment in the Fourth People's Hospital of Nanning from January 24th to February 6th, 2020 were collected and the occurrence of adverse events during the treatment was retrospectively analyzed. According to the 5 principles of adverse drug reaction correlation evaluation proposed in the Handbook of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and Monitoring in China, adverse events that were certainly related, probably related, and possibly related to LPV/r were defined as LPV/r-related adverse reactions. The incidence of adverse reactions was calculated and the main clinical manifestations and severity of adverse reactions [grade 1 (mild), grade 2 (moderate), grade 3 (severe), grade 4 (life-threatening), and grade 5 (death);grade 3-5 was defined as severe adverse reaction] were analyzed. Result(s): A total of 28 patients were enrolled in the analysis, including 13 males and 15 females, aged from 18 to 70 years with an average age of 44 years. The courses of treatment with LPV/r of patients ranged from 2 to 12 days, with a median course of 6 days. Of the 28 patients, 18 developed LPV/r related adverse reactions, with an incidence of 64.3%. The LPV/r-related adverse reactions in 18 patients included gastrointestinal reactions in 14 patients (grade 1 in 13 patients and grade 2 in 1 patient), bradycardia in 2 patients (grade 2 in both patients), and acute hemolysis in 1 patient (grade 3), and liver injury in 1 patient (grade 3), and no grade 4 or 5 adverse reactions occurred. The incidence of severe adverse reactions was 7.1%. Thirteen patients with grade 1 adverse reactions did not affect the treatment, and the symptoms were relieved after 2-7 days of continuous medication. LPV/r was discontinued in 5 patients with grade 2 or 3 adverse reactions, 4 of whom received symptomatic treatment, and the symptoms disappeared 2-10 days later. Conclusion(s): The incidence of adverse reactions in COVID-19 patients treated with LPV/r in our hospital was 64.3%. LPV/r mainly leads to mild gastrointestinal reactions and can also lead to bradycardia, acute hemolysis, and liver injury. Blood routine, liver function, and electrocardiogram need to be monitored during the treatment.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To study the effect of low-to-moderate dose glucocorticoid therapy on viral clearance in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A total of 72 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from January 19 to February 17, 2020 at the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine were recruited. All patients received oral arbidol and combination of lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/cobistitat for antiviral therapy, and symptomatic supportive care. Among them, 51 patients received methylprednisolone (0.75-1.50 mg.kg-1.d-1) (glucocorticoid treatment group), and 21 patients did not use glucocorticoid (control group). The time of virologic negative conversion in sputum and the time of radiologic recovery in lung since onset were compared between the two groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test or Fisher exact test was used to compare the difference between groups. Results: The median ages of the glucocorticoid group and the control group were 52 (45, 62) and 46 (32, 56) years (chi2=4.365, P<0.05). The clinical conditions at hospital admission were different between the two groups (P<0.01). The severe cases accounted for 52.0%, while moderate cases in the control group accounted for 71.4%. The median times from the onset to virologic negative conversion in the two groups were 15 (13, 20) and 14 (12, 20) days (P>0.05). The median times from onset to radiologic recovery were 13 (11, 15) and 13 (12, 17) days in the two groups (P>0.05). In moderate cases, the median times from the onset to virologic conversion in sputum were 13 (11, 18) days in the glucocorticoid group and 13 (12, 15) days in the control group (P>0.05). The median times from onset to radiologic recovery in lung were 12 (10, 15) and 13 (12, 17) days, respectively (P>0.05). Conclusion(s): Low-to-moderate glucocorticoid treatment has no effect on the time of virus clearance in patients with different clinical types of COVID-19, and also no effect on accelerating radiologic recovery in lung, so it is not recommended.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To study the effect of low-to-moderate dose glucocorticoid therapy on viral clearance in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A total of 72 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from January 19 to February 17, 2020 at the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine were recruited. All patients received oral arbidol and combination of lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/cobistitat for antiviral therapy, and symptomatic supportive care. Among them, 51 patients received methylprednisolone (0.75-1.50 mg.kg-1.d-1) (glucocorticoid treatment group), and 21 patients did not use glucocorticoid (control group). The time of virologic negative conversion in sputum and the time of radiologic recovery in lung since onset were compared between the two groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test or Fisher exact test was used to compare the difference between groups. Results: The median ages of the glucocorticoid group and the control group were 52 (45, 62) and 46 (32, 56) years (chi2=4.365, P<0.05). The clinical conditions at hospital admission were different between the two groups (P<0.01). The severe cases accounted for 52.0%, while moderate cases in the control group accounted for 71.4%. The median times from the onset to virologic negative conversion in the two groups were 15 (13, 20) and 14 (12, 20) days (P>0.05). The median times from onset to radiologic recovery were 13 (11, 15) and 13 (12, 17) days in the two groups (P>0.05). In moderate cases, the median times from the onset to virologic conversion in sputum were 13 (11, 18) days in the glucocorticoid group and 13 (12, 15) days in the control group (P>0.05). The median times from onset to radiologic recovery in lung were 12 (10, 15) and 13 (12, 17) days, respectively (P>0.05). Conclusion(s): Low-to-moderate glucocorticoid treatment has no effect on the time of virus clearance in patients with different clinical types of COVID-19, and also no effect on accelerating radiologic recovery in lung, so it is not recommended.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Background: Severe viral pneumonia cases were observed in the people of Wuhan, China in December 2019. It has already affected almost every country around the globe and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. We aim to evaluate the therapeutics and safety of various off label COVID-19 drugs. Method(s): PubMed, Research Gate, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Centre for Disease control and prevention (CDC) portal, Chinese Centre for Disease Control and prevention (CCDC) portal, World Health Organization (WHO) portal were searched for obtaining reliable data. Result(s): COVID-19 is creating a storm of deaths and active cases globally, which is forcing the pharmaceutical companies and scientists to work day and night to find an effective and safer anti-COVID-19 medication. Various in vitro and clinical trials had been performed as well as are currently ongoing to analyze the mechanisms and therapeutics of off label medications like Chloroquine, Hydroxychloro-quine, Amodiaquine, Azithromycin, Remdesivir, Favipiravir, Ritonavir/Lopinavir, Umifenovir, Osel-tamivir, Ribavirin, Nafamostat, Camostat, Tocilizumab, Ivermectin, Nitazoxanide, Famotidine, Vitamin D, Corticosteroids and Dexamethasone. In vitro studies were performed by utilizing Vero E6 cells and hSLAM cells while open/closed, randomized/non-randomized, single-centered/multi-centered and retrospective clinical trials and case studies were organized to determine their safety and efficacy. Conclusion(s): Although these drugs have shown promising results against COVID-19 patients, it cannot be concluded that these drugs are truly safe and effective because there are no conclusive evidence to support the facts since only limited researches and studies had been investigated.Copyright © 2021 Bentham Science Publishers.
ABSTRACT
Background: SARS CoV2 is a newly emerged animal beta coronavirus that causes respiratory illness. This infection has affected 212 countries to date and has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Due to the high transmission rate and lack of availability of any approved anti-viral drug, the formulation of a specific anti-viral therapy has now become a global emergency. Genomic studies have revealed a 79% identity of SARS CoV2 with SARS CoV and 50% identity with MERS CoV, which has given a clue point to test the drugs that were efficient against previously encoun-tered beta coronaviruses. For this purpose, several clinical trials based on the knowledge of existing drugs are moving ahead. These therapies include chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, cor-ticosteroids therapy, favipiravir, ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, anti-cytokine therapy, and convalescent sera. Aim of the study: The purpose of this review is to give a pointer of contributions conducted globally, including strategies utilized for treatments, the pattern of dosage, adverse reactions, and effective outcomes from different drugs. Methodology: Literature has been retrieved from PubMed, PubMed Central, ResearchGate, ScienceDi-rect, and Google Scholar, using a combination of keywords for extensive information. Conclusion(s): Among all the drug options, Remdesivir and the use of Convalescent Sera have been con-sidered as the safest options for treatment against COVID-19. Data from the ongoing clinical trials will be required for the formulation of a specific and approved anti-viral drug,.Copyright © 2021 Bentham Science Publishers.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19. Method(s): This study was a single-center, randomized, open-label, controlled trial with a 2-arm parallel-group design on 68 patients with COVID-19. According to the 1:1 ratio between the study groups (ivermectin group and standard treatment group), patients were randomly admitted to each intervention arm. Result(s): The mean age of the participants in the ivermectin group was (48.37+/-13.32) years. Eighteen of them were males (54.5%) and the participants in the control group had a mean age of (46.28+/-14.47) years, with nineteen of them being males (59.4%). As a primary outcome, after 5 days of randomization, there was no significant difference between the ivermectin group and the control group in the length of stay in the hospital (P=0.168). ICU admission (P=0.764), length of stay in ICU (P=0.622), in-hospital mortality (P=0.427), adverse drug reactions, and changes in the mean difference of laboratory data had not any significant difference between the two groups (except for urea change). In addition, the radiologic findings of the two groups of patients were not significantly different. Linear regression analysis showed that for every 10 years increase of age, 0.6 day of hospitalization duration was increased. There was no statistically significant association between other variables and clinical outcomes. Conclusion(s): Among adult hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, there was no significant relationship between the administration of ivermectin single dose in a five-day course and clinical improvement, and mortality of the participants.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.