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

No abstract

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Although rituximab is known to be effective in the treatment of pemphigus, its role in subepidermal autoimmune blistering diseases is unclear and currently limited to off-label use. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> This is a meta-analysis of case reports, case series, and retrospective studies on the effectiveness and safety of rituximab in bullous pemphigoid, mucous membrane pemphigoid, ocular pemphigoid, and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. We compared remission and relapse rates in patients who received rituximab with those who only received conventional medical therapy. Comparisons were also made among disease subgroups. <b><i>Key Message:</i></b> The present analysis suggests that patients with subepidermal autoimmune blistering diseases treated with rituximab achieve a higher rate of complete remission and encounter their first relapse after a longer time interval. However, time to remission and total relapse rates were similar between groups. Adverse events and mortality rates were no more common in patients who received rituximab. This analysis was limited by the absence of randomized controlled trials and the observation that rituximab was used as a late rescue therapy in most reports. In conclusion, rituximab may be effective in subepidermal blistering disease, but randomized controlled studies are required for the validation of current observational data.

We report a 19‐year‐old South Asian man with progressively enlarging postauricular nodules over a 5‐year period, which were eventually treated by surgical resection.