IMPORTANCEIvermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events. RESULTS Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942

Pachydermoperiostosis is a very rare osteoarthrodermopathic disorder whose clinical and radiographic presentations may mimic those of acromegaly. In the evaluation of patients with acromegaloid appearances, pachydermoperiostosis should be considered as a differential diagnosis. In this article, we report a 17-year-old boy who presented with 2-year history of acral enlargement and facial appearance changes associated with joint pain and excessive sweating. He had been investigated extensively for acromegaly, and the final diagnosis was pachydermoperiostosis.Learning pointsThere is a broad range of differential diagnosis for acromegaloid features such as acromegaly, pseudoacromegaly with severe insulin resistance, Marfan’s syndrome, McCune–Albright and a rare condition called pachydermoperiostosis.Once a patient is suspected to have acromegaly, the first step is biochemical testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis, followed by radiologic testing to determine the cause of the excess growth hormone (GH) secretion. The cause is a somatotroph adenoma of the pituitary in over 95 percent of cases.The first step is measurement of a serum insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1). A normal serum IGF1 concentration is strong evidence that the patient does not have acromegaly.If the serum IGF1 concentration is high (or equivocal), serum GH should be measured after oral glucose administration. Inadequate suppression of GH after a glucose load confirms the diagnosis of acromegaly.Once the presence of excess GH secretion is confirmed, the next step is pituitary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Atypical presentation warrants revision of the diagnosis. This patient presented with clubbing with no gigantism, which is expected in adolescent acromegalics as the growth spurt and epiphyseal plate closure have not taken place yet.

Assay interference with heterophilic antibodies has been well described in literature. Rheumatoid factor is known to cause similar interference leading to falsely elevated hormone levels when measured by immunometric methods like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or multiplex immunoasays (MIA). We report a case of a 60-year-old male patient with a history of rheumatoid arthritis referred to our endocrine clinic for investigation of hypogonadism and was found to have high serum levels of LH, FSH, SHBG, Prolactin, HCG and TSH. We suspected assay interference and further tests were performed. We used Heteroblock tubes and PEG precipitation to eliminate the interference and the hormone levels post treatment were in the normal range. We believe the interference was caused by high serum levels of rheumatoid factor. Although he was treated with thyroxine for 3 years, we believe he may have been treated inappropriately as his Free T4 level was always normal despite high TSH due to assay interference. Our case illustrates the phenomenon of heterophilic antibody interference likely due to high levels of rheumatoid factor. It is essential for clinicians and endocrinologists in particular to be aware of this possibility when making treatment decisions in these groups of patients.

No abstract

No abstract