Objective To evaluate whether favipiravir reduces the time to viral clearance as documented by negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in mild COVID-19 cases compared to placebo. Methods In this randomized, double-blinded, multicenter, and placebo-controlled trial, adults with PCR confirmed mild COVID-19 were recruited in an outpatient setting at seven medical facilities across Saudi Arabia. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir 1800 mg by mouth twice daily on day one followed by 800 mg twice daily (n=112) or a matching placebo (n=119), for a total of 5 to 7 days. The primary outcome was the effect of favipiravir on reducing the time to viral clearance (by PCR test) within 15 days of starting the treatment compared to the placebo group. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: symptom resolution, hospitalization, ICU admissions, adverse events, and 28-day mortality. Results 231 patients were randomized and began the study (median age, 37 [interquartile range: 32-44] years; 155 [67%] men), and 112 (48.5%) were assigned to the treatment group and 119 (51.5%) into the placebo group. The data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) recommended stopping enrollment because of futility at the interim analysis. The median time to viral clearance was 10 (IQR: 6-12) days in the favipiravir group and 8 (IQR: 6-12) days in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 for the favipiravir group (95% CI 0.571 to 1.326; p-value =0.51). The median time to clinical recovery was 7 days (IQR: 4-11) in the favipiravir group and 7 days (IQR: 5-10) in the placebo group. There was no difference between the two groups on the secondary outcome of hospital admission. There were no drug-related severe adverse events. Conclusion In this clinical trial, favipiravir therapy in mild COVID-19 patients did not reduce the time to viral clearance within 15 days of starting the treatment. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier ( NCT04464408 ): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408 .

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient’s Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

Background:Adverse drug reaction (ADR) is considered to be the sixth leading cause of death. The incidence rate estimates approximately 2% of hospital admissions are due to ADRs.Objective:To monitor ADRs in Pulmonology department of a tertiary care hospital patient with pulmonary diseases in an inpatient department of pulmonology.Materials and Methods:A prospective, single centered, observational and open labeled study was carried out in Princess Esra Hospital. The patient population was broadly divided into four categories based on diagnosis - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Infections, Asthma and Others. Suspected ADRs were reported, analyzed, and causality assessment was carried out using Naranjo's algorithm scale.Results:A total of 302 patients were observed, of which 98 patients experienced ADRs, which accounted for 32.23% of the incidence and totally 160 ADEs were observed. Adult Patients were found to have higher incidence (32.09%) while the incidence rate was slightly greater in geriatric patients (32.39%). The highest incidence of ADEs were found in others group (78.57%). Majority of ADRs were suspected to be due to theophylline (19.39%). Gastrointestinal system (38.75%) was the most common organ system affected due to ADRs. Drug was withdrawn in 12 patients, and specific treatment was administered to 32 patients in view of clinical status. Specific treatment for the management of suspected reaction was administered in 32.65% of ADR reports.Conclusion:A relatively high incidence of adverse drug events (32.2%) have been recorded which shows that not only Geriatric patients, but also adults are more susceptible to adverse drug effects. A number of drugs in combination were used, and ADEs often get multiplied. Careful therapeutic monitoring and dose individualization is necessary.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: −0.13, 95% CI: −0.26, −0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.