No abstract

Background Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent that has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro . Objective We aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of ivermectin mucoadhesive nanosuspension intranasal spray in treatment of patients with mild COVID-19. Methods This clinical trial included 114 patients diagnosed as mild COVID-19. Patients were divided randomly into two age and sex-matched groups; group A comprising 57 patients received ivermectin nanosuspension nasal spray twice daily plus the Egyptian protocol of treatment for mild COVID-19 and group B comprising 57 patients received the Egyptian protocol for mild COVID-19 only. Evaluation of the patients was performed depending on improvement of presenting manifestations, negativity of two consecutive pharyngeal swabs for the COVID-19 nucleic acid via rRT-PCR and assessments of hematological and biochemical parameters in the form of complete blood counts, C-reactive protein, serum ferritin and d-dimer which were performed at presentation and 7 days later. Results Of the included patients confirmed with mild COVID-19, 82 were males (71.9%) and 32 females (28.1%) with mean age 45.1 ± 18.9. In group A, 54 patients (94.7%) achieved 2 consecutive negative PCR nasopharyngeal swabs in comparison to 43 patients (75.4%) in group B with P = 0.004. The durations of fever, cough, dyspnea and anosmia were significantly shorter in group A than group B, without significant difference regarding the duration of gastrointestinal symptoms. Duration taken for nasopharyngeal swab to be negative was significantly shorter in group A than in group B (8.3± 2.8 days versus 12.9 ± 4.3 days; P = 0.0001). Conclusion Local use of ivermectin mucoadhesive nanosuspension nasal spray is safe and effective in treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 with rapid viral clearance and shortening the anosmia duration. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04716569; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04716569 .

Evidence on the efficacy of adding macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin) to the treatment regimen for COVID-19 is limited. We testify whether adding azithromycin or clarithromycin to a standard of care regimen was superior to standard of supportive care alone in patients with mild COVID-19.This randomized trial included three groups of patients with COVID-19. The azithromycin group included, 107 patients who received azithromycin 500 mg/24 h for 7 days, the clarithromycin group included 99 patients who received clarithromycin 500 /12 h for 7 days, and the control group included 99 patients who received standard care only. All three groups received only symptomatic treatment for control of fever and cough .Clinical and biochemical evaluations of the study participants including assessment of the symptoms duration, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum ferritin, D-dimer, complete blood count (CBC), in addition to non-contrast chest computed tomography (CT), were performed. The overall results revealed significant early improvement of symptoms (fever, dyspnea and cough) in patients treated with either azithromycin or clarithromycin compared to control group, also there was significant early conversion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR to negative in patients treated with either azithromycin or clarithromycin compared to control group (p < 0.05 for all).There was no significant difference in time to improvement of fever, cough, dyspnea, anosmia, gastrointestinal tract "GIT" symptoms and time to PCR negative conversion between patients treated with azithromycin compared to patients treated with clarithromycin (p > 0.05 for all). Follow up chest CT done after 2 weeks of start of treatment showed significant improvement in patients treated with either azithromycin or clarithromycin compared to control group (p < 0.05 for all).Adding Clarithromycin or azithromycin to the therapeutic protocols for COVID-19 could be beneficial for early control of fever and early PCR negative conversion in Mild COVID-19.Trial registration: (NCT04622891) www.ClinicalTrials.gov retrospectively registered (November 10, 2020).

No abstract

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of positional vertigo. Vitamin D deficiency may be one of the causes of its development. To assess the relation between recurrent attacks BPPV and Vitamin D deficiency. A case control study in which 40 patients were clinically diagnosed as posterior canal BPPV, Serum 25(OH) D was measured at 1st visit. Patients were divided into two groups; group A (20 patients) received Vitamin D supplementation in addition to canal repositioning maneuver and group B (20 patients) treated by canal repositioning maneuver only. Follow up of all patients for 6 months, neuro-otological assessment was repeated and recurrent attacks were recorded. Serum vitamin D was repeated after 6 month. This study included 14 males and 26 females age ranged from 35 to 61 years, Average serum of 25 (OH) D at the first visit was (12.4 ± 2 ng/ml) for group A, and (12.2 ± 1.7 ng/ml) for group B, all patients had low serum level of 25(OH) D (below 20 ng/ml). Recurrent BPPV episodes, were significantly lower in group A than that of group B. There is a relation between BPPV recurrence and low serum Vitamin D.