Background The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been addressed in some studies related to the current coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with possible higher severity and mortality in patients with hypertension. A triple-blind randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the effects of these medications on the COVID-19 progression. Methods Patients were enrolled in this trial between April and September 2020. They were randomized in two groups. The former dosage of ACEis/ARBs was continued in one group while in another group, the ACEis/ARBs were replaced by amlodipine ± carvedilol according to the dose equivalents. The primary outcomes were length of stay in hospitals and intensive care units. Other outcomes include mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation, readmission, and COVID-19 symptoms after discharge. Results We randomized 64 patients with COVID-19 into two groups. Most patients were aged 66-80 and 46-65 years-old, 33 (51.6%) and 27 (42.2%), respectively. The study groups were nearly similar in baseline vital signs and characteristics. In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of recorded systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements between groups. Furthermore, we did not find a significant difference between the days of intensive care unit or ward admission, the discharge rate, or readmission rates between the two groups. Conclusions This randomized triple-blind multi-centric clinical trial did not show any deleterious effects of ACEi/ARB medications in hypertensive COVID-19 patients.

Background There is an ongoing controversy about harms and benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertensive patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the unresolved debate, we investigated the association of ARBs with in-hospital outcomes of these patients. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we studied patients with COVID-19 who referred to Sina Hospital in Tehran, Iran, from February 20 to May 29, 2020. Patients with either positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction test of swab specimens, or high clinical suspicion according to the World Health Organization's interim guidance were included. We followed-up patients for incurring death, severe COVID-19, and in-hospital complications. Results We evaluated 681 patients with COVID-19 of whom 37 patients were excluded due to incomplete medical records and 8 patients who used ACEIs which left 636 patients in the analysis. In this cohort, 108 (17.0%) patients expired and 407 (64.0%) patients incurred severe COVID-19. Of 254 (39.9%) patients with hypertension, 122 (48.0%) patients were receiving an ARB. After adjustment for possible confounders, we found no independent association between taking ARBs and in-hospital outcomes except for acute kidney injury (AKI), in patients with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19, either hypertensive or not-hypertensive. We found that discontinuation of ARBs during hospitalization was associated with a greater risk of mortality, invasive ventilation, and AKI (All P˂0.002). Conclusions We found that taking ARBs by patients with hypertension and confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 is not associated with poorer in-hospital outcomes after adjustment for possible confounders.

Background: We aimed to ascertain risk indicators of in-hospital mortality and severity as well as to provide a comprehensive systematic review and metaanalysis to investigate the prognostic significance of the prognostic nutrition index (PNI) as a predictor of adverse outcomes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we studied patients with COVID-19 who were referred to our hospital from February 16 to November 1, 2020. Patients with either a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that was positive for COVID-19 or high clinical suspicion based on the World Health Organization (WHO) interim guidance were enrolled. A parallel systematic review/meta-analysis (in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed. Results: A total of 504 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included in this study, among which 101 (20.04%) patients died during hospitalization, and 372

IntroductionTo achieve target concentrations, the application of higher-than-standard doses of amikacin is proposed for the treatment of sepsis due to an increase in volume of distribution and clearance, but little data are available on aminoglycoside administration in critically ill elderly patients.Patients and methodsForty critically ill elderly patients (aged over 65 years) who required amikacin therapy due to severe documented, or suspected gram-negative infections, were randomly assigned to two treatment groups. Group A (20 patients) received 15 mg/kg amikacin and Group B (20 patients) received 25 mg/kg amikacin per day as a single daily dose. All the patients were monitored for renal damage by the daily monitoring of serum creatinine. The amikacin peak (Cmax) and trough (Cmin) serum concentrations were measured on Days 3 and 7 postadministration.ResultsData from 18 patients in Group A and 15 patients in Group B were finally analyzed. On Day 3, the amikacin mean Cmax levels in the standard and high-dose treatment groups were 30.4±11 and 52.3±16.1 µg/mL (P<0.001), and the Cmin levels were 3.2±2.1 and 5.2±2.8 µg/mL, respectively (P=0.035). On Day 7, the Cmax levels in the standard and high-dose groups were 33±7.3 and 60.0±17.6 µg/mL (P=0.001), and the Cmin levels were 3.2±2.9 and 9.3±5.6 µg/mL, respectively (P=0.002). In only six (40%) of the patients in the high-dose groups and none of the patients in the standard-dose group, amikacin Cmax reached the target levels (>64 µg/mL), whereas the amikacin mean Cmin levels in the high-dose group were above the threshold of toxicity (5 µg/mL).ConclusionOur results suggest that the optimum dose of amikacin should be determined for elderly critically ill patients. It seems that higher-than-standard doses of amikacin with more extended intervals might be more appropriate than standard once-daily dosing in the elderly critically ill patients.

Objective. The aim of our study was to assess and validate the effectiveness of early dose adjustment of vancomycin based on first dose monitoring in achieving target recommended goal in critically ill patients. Methods. Twenty critically ill patients with sepsis received loading dose of 25 mg/kg of vancomycin and then were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 received maximum empirical doses of vancomycin of 15 mg/kg every 8 hrs. In group 2, the doses were individualized based on serum concentrations of vancomycin. First dose nonsteady state sampling was used to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters of the patients within 24 hours. Results. Steady state trough serum concentrations were significantly higher in group 2 in comparison with group 1 (19.4 ± 4.4 mg/L versus 14.4 ± 4.3 mg/L) (P = 0.03). Steady state AUCs were significantly higher in group 2 compared with group 1 (665.9 ± 136.5 mg·hr/L versus 490.7 ± 101.1 mg·hr/L) (P = 0.008). Conclusions. With early individualized dosing regimen, significantly more patients achieved peak and trough steady state concentrations. In the context of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic goal of area under the time concentration curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) ≥400 and also to obtain trough serum concentration of vancomycin of ≥15 mg/L, it is necessary to individualize doses of vancomycin in critically ill patients.