Introduction The effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy. Methods The study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10–14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-β1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-β1a (same dose). Results Of 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45–1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group). Conclusions Our findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality. Trial registration The trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a serious obstacle in front of public health. Interferon-beta 1a (IFN-β 1a) has been used to treat patients with COVID-19. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of high-dose IFN-β 1a compared to low dose IFN-β 1a in severe COVID-19 cases. Methods In this randomized, controlled, and clinical trial, eligible patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were randomly assigned to receive one of the two following therapeutic regimens: The intervention group was treated with high-dose IFN-β 1a (Recigen) (Subcutaneous injections of 88μg (24 million IU) on days 1, 3, 6) + lopinavir /ritonavir (Kaletra) (400mg/100 mg twice a day for 10 days, orally) and the control group was treated with low-dose IFN-β 1a (Recigen) (Subcutaneous injections of 44μg (12 million IU) on days 1, 3, 6) + lopinavir /ritonavir (Kaletra) (400mg/100 mg twice a day for 10 days, orally). Result A total of 168 COVID- 19 confirmed patients underwent randomization; 83 were assigned to the intervention group and 85 were assigned to the control group. Median Time To Clinical Improvement (TTIC) for cases treated with low-dose IFN-β1a was shorter than that for cases treated with high-dose IFN-β1a (6 vs 10 days; P=0.018). The mortality rates in intervention and control group were 41% and 36.5%, respectively. Conclusion The use of high-dose IFN-β 1a did not improve TTCI in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Also, it did not have any significant effect on mortality reduction compared with treating with low-dose IFN-β 1a. Trial registration: This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04521400.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Uncontrolled overproduction of inflammatory mediators is predominantly observed in patients with severe COVID-19. The excessive immune response gives rise to multiple organ dysfunction. Implementing extracorporeal therapies may be useful in omitting inflammatory mediators and supporting different organ systems. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We conducted a single-center, matched control retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were treated with hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy (hemoperfusion group) or standard treatment (matched group). Hemoperfusion or hemoperfusion and continuous renal replacement therapies were initiated in the hemoperfusion group. The patients in the matched group were matched one by one with the hemoperfusion group for age, sex, oxygen saturation (SPO2) at the admission, and the frequency of using invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization. Two types of hemoperfusion cartridges used in this study were Jafron^© (HA330) and CytoSorb® 300. <b><i>Result:</i></b> A total of 128 COVID-19-confirmed patients were enrolled in this study; 73 patients were allotted to the matched group and 55 patients received hemoperfusion. The median SPO2 at the admission day in the control and hemoperfusion groups was 80% and 75%, respectively (<i>p</i> value = 0.113). The mortality rate was significantly lower in the hemoperfusion group compared to the matched group (67.3% vs. 89%; <i>p</i> value = 0.002). The median length of ICU stay was statistically different in studied groups (median, 12 days for hemoperfusion group vs. 8 days for the matched group; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). The median final SPO2 was statistically higher in the hemoperfusion group than in the matched group, and the median PaCO2 was lower. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Among critically ill COVID-19 patients, based on our study, the use of hemoperfusion may reduce the mortality rate and improve SPO2 and PaCO2.

IntroductionIn critically ill COVID-19 patients, uncontrolled over-production of inflammatory mediators is observed, dominantly. The excessive immune response give rise to multiple organ dysfunction. Implementing extracorporeal therapies may be useful in omitting inflammatory mediators and supporting different organ systems. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.MethodWe conducted a single-center, matched control retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were treated with hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy (hemoperfusion group) or standard treatment (matched group). Hemoperfusion or hemoperfusion and CRRT (continuous renal replacement therapy) therapies were initiated in hemoperfusion group. The patients in the matched group were matched one by one with the hemoperfusion group for age, sex, the oxygen saturation (SPO2) at the admission and the frequency of using invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization. Two types of hemoperfusion cartridges used in this study were Jafron© (HA330) or cytosorb® 300. ResultA total number of 128 COVID- 19 confirmed patients were enrolled in this study; 73 patients were allotted to the matched group and 55 patients received hemoperfusion. The median SPO2 at the admission in control and hemoperfusion groups was 80% and 75%, respectively (P-value=0.113). The mortality rate was significantly lower in hemoperfusion group compared to the matched group (67.3% vs. 89%; P.value=0.002). The median length of ICU stay was statistically different in studied groups (median, 12 days for hemoperfusion group vs. 8 days for the matched group; P<0.001). The median of final oxygen saturation was statistically higher and median of PaCO2 was lower in hemoperfusion group compared to the matched group.ConclusionAmong critically ill COVID-19 patients, the use of hemoperfusion reduces the mortality rate and improves oxygen saturation and PaCO2.

No abstract