Articles: covid-19.
-
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. · May 2022
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter StudyPhase 2b Study of Inhaled RVT-1601 for Chronic Cough in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: SCENIC Trial: Multi-Center, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.
Rationale: Chronic cough remains a major and often debilitating symptom for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In a phase 2A study, inhaled RVT-1601 (cromolyn sodium) reduced daytime cough and 24-hour average cough counts in patients with IPF. Objectives: To determine the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of inhaled RVT-1601 for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF. ⋯ The mean percentage change from baseline in 24-hour average cough count was 27.7% in the placebo group. Treatment was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: Treatment with inhaled RVT-1601 (10, 40, and 80 mg three times a day) did not provide benefit over placebo for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Aspirin as a Treatment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a randomised placebo controlled clinical trial.
There is no pharmacologic treatment for ARDS. Platelets play an important role in the pathophysiology of ARDS. Preclinical, observational, and clinically relevant models of ARDS indicate aspirin as a potential therapeutic option. ⋯ Aspirin was well tolerated but did not improve OI or other physiological outcomes; a larger trial is not feasible in its current design.
-
Eur. J. Clin. Invest. · May 2022
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter StudyEnoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: The X-COVID-19 Randomized Trial.
It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards METHODS: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. ⋯ No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial.
Vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on experimental data and data from small and uncontrolled observational studies. The COvid19 and VITamin d TRIAL (COVIT-TRIAL) study was conducted to test whether a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19 improves, compared to standard-dose cholecalciferol, the 14-day overall survival among at-risk older adults infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). ⋯ In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we observed that the early administration of high-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 improved overall mortality at day 14. The effect was no longer observed after 28 days.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparing two different schedules of online learning for updated cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines in Covid-19 patients: A randomized study.
Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an evolving disease with newly generated evidence related to the clinical management of Covid-19 patients. We aimed to compare two online learning schedules for disseminating new cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines in terms of knowledge gain and acceptability among nurses. Methods In a prospective randomized controlled study, 61 nurses trained in comprehensive cardiopulmonary life support (CCLS) were randomized to synchronous (n=31) and asynchronous learning groups (n= 30). ⋯ Results Both schedules of online learning were effective in improving the knowledge scores of the nurses (11.93 [3.26] v. 21.15 [1.90], p=0.01 and 11.71 [3.12] v. 20.32 [1.71], p=0.01). The mean acceptability scores of nurses in the asynchronous group were statistically lower than in the synchronous group (38.93 [2.50] v. 42.5 [3.08], p=0.007). Conclusion Both synchronous and asynchronous schedules of online learning were effective in disseminating updated CPR guidelines; however, nurses in the synchronous group were more satisfied with the learning schedule.