Background Treatment of patients with COVID-19 has included supportive care to mainly relief symptoms of the disease. Although World Health Organization (WHO) has not recommended any effective treatments for COVID-19, there are some reports about use of antiviral drugs. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Arbidol (ARB) on COVID-19 disease. Methods Using an open-label randomized controlled trial, we examined the efficacy of ARB in patients with COVID-19 in a teaching hospital. One hundred eligible patients with diagnosis of COVID-19 were recruited in the study and assigned randomly to two groups of either hydroxychloroquine followed by KALETRA (Lopinavir/ritonavir) or hydroxychloroquine followed by ARB. The primary outcome was hospitalization duration and clinical improvement 7 days after admission. The criteria of improvement were relief of cough, dyspnea, and fever. Time to relief from fever was also assessed across the two groups. Without any dropouts, 100 patients were entered into the study for the final analysis at significance level of 0.05. Results The mean age of patients was 56.6 (17.8) years and 56.2 (14.8) years in ARB and KALETRA groups, respectively. Majority of patients were male across two groups (66 and 54%). The duration of hospitalization in ARB group was significantly less than KALETRA arm (7.2 versus 9.6 days; P = 0.02). Time to relief fever was almost similar across two groups (2.7 versus 3.1 days in ARB and KALETRA arms, respectively). Peripheral oxygen saturation rate was significantly different after 7 days of admission across two groups (94% versus 92% in ARB and KALETRA groups respectively) (P = 0.02). Based on multiple linear regression analysis, IHD, Na level, and oxygen saturation at the time of admission and type of therapy were the independent adjusted variables that determined the duration of hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. Conclusion Our findings showed that Arbidol, compared to KALETRA, significantly contributes to clinical and laboratory improvements, including peripheral oxygen saturation, requiring ICU admissions, duration of hospitalization, chest CT involvements, WBC, and ESR. We suggest further studies on ARB against COVID-19 using larger sample size and multicenter design. Trial registration IRCT20180725040596N2 on 18 April 2020.
Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to the cytokine storm syndrome which may cause acute respiratory failure syndrome and death. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of infliximab, intravenous gammaglobulin (IVIg) or combination therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: In this observational research, we studied 104 intubated adult patients with severe COVID-19 infection (based on clinical symptoms, and radiographic or CT scan parameters) who were admitted to the ICU of a multispecialty hospital during March 2020 in Tehran, Iran. All cases received standard treatment regimens as local protocol (Oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir or sofosbuvir or atazanavir ± ribavirin). The cases were grouped as controls (n = 43), infliximab (n = 27), IVIg (n = 23) and combination (n = 11). Results: There was no significant difference between controls and treatment groups in terms of underlying diseases or the number of underlying diseases. The mean age (SD) of cases was 72.42 (16.06) in the control group, 64.52 (12.965) in IVIg, 63.40 (17.57) in infliximab and 64.00 (11.679) in combination therapy; (P = 0.047, 0.031 and 0.11, respectively). Also, 37% in the infliximab group, 26.1% in IVIg, 45.5% in combination therapy, and 62.8% in the control group expired (all P < 0.05). Hazard ratios were 0.31 in IVIg (95% CI: 0.12-0.76, P = 0.01), 0.30 in infliximab (95% CI: 0.13-0.67, P = 0.004), 0.39 in combination therapy (95% CI: 0.12-1.09, P = 0.071). Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, it seems that infliximab and IVIg, alone or together, in patients with severe COVID-19 disease can be considered an effective treatment.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution-NonCo mmercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. AbstractHelicobacter pylori is one of the most prevalent infection worldwide. It affects individuals of different age groups. Elderly people tend to resist eradication treatment and worsening of infection can lead to several gastric and non-gastric pathologies.Aging-associated cellular and molecular alteration can increase the risk of other pathologies such as osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, respiratory and renal dysfunction, and cancer in geriatric patients, more than other age groups.This review article highlights some of the most common old age diseases and the role of H. pylori infection as a risk factor to worsen the conditions, presented by the molecular evidences of these associations. These studies can help clinicians to understand the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and identify high-risk patients, aiding clearer diagnosis and treatment.
Background: Gram-negative bacterium, Helicobacter pylori is notorious for various pathologies like peptic ulcers, gastritis, functional dyspepsia, and various cancers. Methods: Systemic effects of its toxins have led scientists' attention toward the extragastric pathologies associated with it. To date, it has been shown to have an effect on almost all the systems in the human body. Results: Various studies have been conducted to obtain the relation between H. pylori infection, and other diseases. Conclusion: In this review, we aim to discuss the extragastric diseases associated with H. pylori and the biological factors that relate them to it. K E Y W O R D S biological factors, extragastric diseases, Helicobacter pylori J Cell Biochem. 2019;120:12128-12140. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcb 12128 |
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection and treatment are significant health organizations' concerns worldwide. Although there is no proven drug license against the virus, a variety of components have under investigation. In this regard, the present study was intended to evaluate the consequences of Sovodak (Sofosbuvir/Daclatasvir) treatment in COVID-19 patients compared with Kaletra (Lopinavir/ritonavir). Methods: This study was conducted as a randomized trial using 120 COVID19 confirmed cases between August 19th and September 19th, 2020, in which subjects were classified into two treatment groups, 58 (Sovodak group) and 54 (Kaletra group). Related statistical operations calculated significant outcomes such as survival rate and hazard ratio via SPSS v.16. Sovodak was composed of Sofosbuvir 400mg and Daclatasvir 60mg, and Kaletra included Lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg. Results: We observed that there was no significant difference concerning the comorbidities, death, ICU admission, remission. Besides, Kaletra had a higher rate of discharge versus Sovodak (HR=1.551 (95% CI=1.008-2.386), P-value=0.046), and a better outcome was observed in patients receiving Conclusion: Sovodak compared to Kaletra by Hazard plot. Sovodak (Sofosbuvir/Daclatasvir) therapy in COVID19 cases was accompanied by a significantly higher survival rate and better outcome than Kaletra (Lopinavir/ritonavir).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.