Background:The current COVID-19 pandemic has had a major influence on our daily lives. The most frequent early symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are coughing, fever, rhinitis, and loss of smell and taste. If the infection progresses to the lower respiratory tract, it can cause massive inflammation of the pulmonary system, which can be life threatening. There is urgent need for a broadly available and effective therapy for the treatment of early infections with SARS-CoV-2 in order to prevent progression to severe disease. Methodology:CARVIN is a phase II proof of concept, randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, interventional clinical trial. 90 SARS-CoV-2 positive volunteers were randomized into three groups to receive either placebo, azelastine 0.02% or azelastine 0.1% nasal spray for a period of 11 days. Seven nasopharyngeal swabs were taken during this period for quantitative PCR measurements assessing the viral load via the ORF 1a/b and E genes. Investigators also assessed patients’ status continuously throughout the trial, and the intensity of individual symptoms were reported by the patients using an electronic diary. Two safety follow-ups were performed at days 16 and 60 of study participation. Results:Since the data of the primary outcome did not show a normal distribution, all statistical tests presented here were done non-parametrically and all p-values are descriptive and without adjustment for multiple testing. A broader descriptive analysis will be performed at a later date on all variables and it will be published in a peer-reviewed publication. A wide range of initial viral loads in the nasopharyngeal swabs of the study population was observed with an overall median/mean + SD Ct value of approximately 21.9 / 23.6 + 5.8, corresponding to log10 6.6 + 1.8 copies per /ml. Out of the 90 enrolled subjects, at least 54 carried the Alpha (B.1.1.7, UK) variant.Treatment with azelastine nasal sprays resulted in a greater but non-significant decrease in mean viral load compared to that measured in the placebo group at all 6 timepoints after initiation of treatment. This tendency was stable and most pronounced on day 8 (after 7 days treatment), when in the 0.1% and 0.02% azelastine nasal spray groups, an approximately 8- and 29-fold greater clinically meaningful reduction of the baseline viral load, respectively, compared to placebo was observed (based on the ORF1a/b gene). On days 4 and 11, approximately 4-fold greater mean viral load reduction was seen in the 0.1% azelastine group.Differences in mean viral load compared to baseline values were seen starting on the second day (after one day of treatment) in the azelastine 0.1% and azelastine 0.02% group for ORF 1a/b gene, and with azelastine 0.1% for the E gene, while this reduction was less pronounced in the placebo group.The effects of 0.1% azelastine nasal spray treatment to accelerate viral load reduction were even more pronounced in patients with initial high viral load (subgroup analyses in patients exhibiting initial Ct values below 25 and below 20, respectively). Of note, by day 8 the PCR-test had turned negative in more patients in the 0.1% azelastine group (n=6, p= 0.01 for the ORF 1a/b gene and n = 3, p= 0.08 for the E gene) and in the 0.02% azelastine group (n=8, p< 0.01 for the ORF 1a/b gene and n = 5, p= 0.02 for the E gene) than in the placebo group (n=0 for the ORF 1a/b gene and n = 0, for the E gene).Discussion:This study provides the first clinical hints of the effects of an azelastine nasal spray in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Subgroup analyses performed in patients exhibiting high initial viral loads are further suggestive of azelastine’s potential as an antiviral treatment.

With the changing epidemiology of COVID-19 and its impact on our daily lives, there is still an unmet need of COVID-19 therapies treating early infections to prevent progression. The current study was a randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were randomized into 3 groups receiving placebo, 0.02% or 0.1% azelastine nasal spray for 11 days, during which viral loads were assessed by quantitative PCR. Investigators assessed patients’ status throughout the trial including safety follow-ups (days 16 and 60). Symptoms were documented in patient diaries. Initial viral loads were log10 6.85 ± 1.31 (mean ± SD) copies/mL (ORF 1a/b gene). After treatment, virus load was reduced in all groups (p < 0.0001) but was greater in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.007). In a subset of patients (initial Ct < 25) viral load was strongly reduced on day 4 in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.005). Negative PCR results appeared earlier and more frequently in the azelastine treated groups: being 18.52% and 21.43% in the 0.1% and 0.02% groups, respectively, compared to 0% for placebo on day 8. Comparable numbers of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups with no safety concerns. The shown effects of azelastine nasal spray may thus be suggestive of azelastine’s potential as an antiviral treatment.Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00024520; Date of Registration in DRKS: 12/02/2021). EudraCT number: 2020-005544-34.

COVID-19 strongly influences our daily lives, and there is urgent need for a therapy treating early infections to prevent progression.CARVIN was a randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were randomized into 3 groups receiving placebo, 0·02% or 0·1% azelastine nasal spray for 11 days, during which viral loads were assessed by quantitative PCR. Investigators assessed patients’ status throughout the trial including safety follow-ups (days 16 and 60). Symptoms were documented in patient diaries.Initial viral loads were log10 6·85 ± 1·31 (mean ± SD) copies/mL (ORF 1a/b gene). After treatment, virus load was reduced in all groups (p<0·0001), but was greater in the 0·1% group compared to placebo (p=0·007). In a subset of patients (initial Ct<25) viral load was strongly reduced on day 4 in the 0·1% group compared to placebo (p=0·005). Negative PCR results appeared earlier and more frequently in the azelastine treated groups: being 18·52% and 21·43% in the 0·1% and 0·02% groups, respectively, compared to 0% for placebo on day 8. Comparable numbers of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups with no safety concerns.The shown effects of azelastine nasal spray may thus be suggestive of azelastine’s potential as an antiviral treatment.Trial Registration:The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00024520; Date of Registration in DRKS: 12/02/2021).EudraCT number: 2020-005544-34

Although treatment of children infected with HIV with protease inhibitors has improved the survival of these patients, various adverse side effects have been reported, including metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperlipidaemia. We describe a case of hip osteonecrosis in an adolescent with AIDS who was being treated with protease inhibitors. There is a possible relation with hyperlipidemia. F.M.G., white, 11 years old, AIDS A2, started to receive AZT and DDI when he was 7 years old. In April 1999, the patient had a significant increase in viral load and so the antiretroviral therapy was switched to d4T, 3TC and Ritonavir. Triglyceride plasma levels reached 460mg/dl after this switch and were always above the reference value. In December 1999, the patient complained of pain in the right hip. On physical examination, he had limited movement of this joint. Magnetic resonance imaging of the right hip showed flattening, deformity and fragmentation of the femoral head, compatible with osteonecrosis. Few cases of femoral head osteonecrosis have been associated with HIV infection, in the absence of the classic risk factors for osteonecrosis. Metabolic risk factors include hypertriglyceridaemia. The immunological disorders that occur in the HIV infection may predispose the patient to avascular osteonecrosis and metabolic disorders, particularly hypertriglyceridemia, while the use of protease inhibitors, may be considered an additional risk factor for osteonecrosis. Given the importance of premature diagnosis and to avoid complications of osteonecrosis, we recommend evaluation of musculoskeletal symptoms in children receiving protease inhibitors.