Efficacy of naproxen in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aims
The current study was done to examine the efficacy of naproxen in the management of patients with COVID-19 infection.Methods
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done on hospitalized adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either naproxen (two capsules per day each containing 500 mg naproxen sodium) or placebo (containing starch) for five days along with the routine treatment that was nationally recommended for COVID-19 infection. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 infection, the time to clinical improvement, blood pressure, laboratory parameters, and death due to COVID-19 infection were considered as the outcome variables in the present study.Results
Treatment with naproxen improved cough and shortness of breath in COVID-19 patients; such that, compared with placebo, naproxen intake was associated with 2.90 (95% CI: 1.10-7.66) and 2.82 (95% CI: 1.05-7.55) times more improvement in cough and shortness of breath, respectively. In addition, naproxen administration resulted in a significant increase in mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and had a preventive effect on the reduction of systolic blood pressure in COVID-19 patients.Conclusion
Treatment with naproxen can improve cough and shortness of breath in COVID-19-infected patients. Further studies are required to confirm our findings.
SUBMITTER: Asadi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8530771 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a known complication of hip arthroscopy. Our objective was to determine the effect of postoperative naproxen therapy on the development of HO following arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement.Between August 2011 and April 2013, 108 eligible patients were enrolled and randomized to take naproxen or a placebo for three weeks postoperatively. Radiographs were made at routine follow-up visits for one year following surgery. The primary outcome measure was the development of HO, as classified with the Brooker criteria and two-dimensional measurements on radiographs made at least seventy-five days postoperatively (average, 322 days). The primary analysis, performed with a Fisher exact test, compared the proportion of subjects with HO between the treatment and control groups. A single a priori interim analysis was planned at the midpoint of the study.Our data safety and monitoring board stopped this study when the interim analysis showed that the stopping criterion had been met for demonstration of efficacy of the naproxen intervention. The prevalence of HO was 46% (twenty-two of the forty-eight in the final analysis) in the placebo group versus 4% (two of forty-eight) in the naproxen group (p < 0.001). Medication compliance was 69% overall, but it did not differ between the naproxen and placebo groups. Minor adverse reactions to the study medications were reported in 42% of the patients taking naproxen versus 35% of those taking the placebo (p = 0.45).In this trial, prophylaxis with naproxen was effective in reducing the prevalence of HO without medication-related morbidity.
| S-EPMC4673445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several methods have been proposed to relieve orthodontic pain, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy of 5% naproxen gel to relieve pain associated with orthodontic separator placement.This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 41 patients between 14 and 20 years old complaining of pain due to placement of orthodontic elastic separators. Five-percent naproxen and placebo gels were applied randomly in a spilt mouth design to the permanent first molars area. The gels were applied every 8 hours for 3 days after placement of separators. Patients recorded their level of pain at determined time points using a 0 to 100 visual analog scale. Normal distribution was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Paired samples t test was used to compare the mean pain score between the two gels. Multi-factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the severity of pain based on gender and age.Out of 41 patients, 34 completed this trial (23 females and 11 males). The mean pain score significantly decreased over time in both sides and for both genders (P < 0.001). Pain score was not significantly different between males and females or between patients < 16 and ≥ 16 years of age. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the naproxen group at all-time points (P < 0.001). Naproxen gel showed significantly higher analgesic efficacy when compared to the placebo at all-time points. The highest and lowest pain score was noted at 2 hours and at 7 days after separator placement, respectively.Using 5% naproxen gel is an effective method for reducing orthodontic pain following elastic separator placement.
| S-EPMC5559666 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFew therapies are approved for hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Ibrutinib, a once-daily Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may mitigate COVID-19-induced lung damage by reducing inflammatory cytokines. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 2 iNSPIRE study evaluated ibrutinib for prevention of respiratory failure in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.MethodsAdult patients with severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalization and supplemental oxygen but without respiratory failure were randomized 1:1 (stratified by remdesivir prescription) to ibrutinib 420 mg or placebo once daily for up to 28 days plus standard of care (SOC), including remdesivir and/or dexamethasone.ResultsForty-six patients were randomized to ibrutinib plus SOC (n = 22) or placebo plus SOC (n = 24). The primary endpoint (proportion of patients alive and without respiratory failure through day 28) was not met, with no statistically significant difference adjusting for remdesivir prescription (86% with ibrutinib plus SOC vs 79% with placebo plus SOC; adjusted difference, 5.8% [80% confidence interval, -9.2% to 20.4%]; P = .599). Secondary endpoints also showed no statistically significant improvement with ibrutinib plus SOC. Median treatment duration was 14 days for ibrutinib and placebo. Adverse events were similar with ibrutinib plus SOC vs placebo plus SOC (overall: 55% vs 50%; serious: 18% vs 13%) and were consistent with the known safety profile of ibrutinib.ConclusionsAddition of ibrutinib to SOC did not improve the proportion of patients alive and without respiratory failure through day 28 in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Ibrutinib had a manageable safety profile, with similar safety to placebo.Clinical trials registrationNCT04375397.
| S-EPMC8992313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVidofludimus calcium has shown anti-inflammatory effects in clinical trials of autoimmune diseases and recently demonstrated antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vidofludimus calcium in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Europe and the USA.MethodsPatients aged 18 years or older who positive for COVID-19 were randomized (1:1) to receive placebo or 45 mg vidofludimus calcium for 14 days with both groups receiving standard-of-care treatment. The primary endpoint was the need for invasive ventilation after 28 days (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04379271; EudraCT 2020-001264-28).ResultsBetween June 12, 2020 and December 10, 2020, a total of 223 were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 112) or vidofludimus calcium (n = 111); three patients withdrew consent and were not treated. Eight (9%) patients in the placebo group and 12 (11%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group needed invasive ventilation during the 28-day study period, which was lower than the assumed rate of 40%. Time to clinical improvement was shorter by approximately 1 day in the vidofludimus calcium group (15.0 days [90% CI 14.8-15.9]) compared to the placebo group (15.9 days [90% CI 14.9-19.9]). This effect was greatest in patients who initiated therapy within 9 days of symptom onset (3.8 days shorter in the vidofludimus calcium group). Higher trough concentrations of vidofludimus calcium were associated with quicker time to clinical recovery. The rate and timing of appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were not different between groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 (4%) patients in the placebo group and 2 (2%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group; treatment-emergent adverse events of increased severity related to COVID-19 occurred in 13 (12%) patients in the placebo group and 8 (7%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group. Overall mortality was low (2%).ConclusionsThese findings support vidofludimus calcium being safe and well tolerated in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9568890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveIn US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge.ResultsTwo hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients.ConclusionAmong ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.
| S-EPMC5820149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux is considered to cause sleep disturbance, whereas proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration is reported to improve insomnia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux are asymptomatic and a significant number with erosive esophagitis are also reported to be asymptomatic. We examined whether PPI administration has a therapeutic effect for improving insomnia in patients without reflux symptoms in the same manner as patients with reflux symptoms. METHODS: We performed a randomized multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial using 176 patients with insomnia regardless of the presence of reflux symptoms. The patients were divided into those administered omeprazole (20 mg) or a placebo for 14 days. Four self-reporting questionnaires, QOLRAD-J (Japanese translation of Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and a sleep diary, were used for evaluating GERD-related quality of life (QOL) and sleep disturbance. RESULTS: We evaluated 171 patients with insomnia, of whom 69 had typical reflux symptoms. Omeprazole statistically significantly improved GERD-related QOL from 30.8±0.7 to 33.0±0.5 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, total) and from 6.0±0.2 to 6.6±0.1 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, sleep-related) when administrated to patients with reflux symptoms. Omeprazole also improved insomnia significantly better than the placebo in patients with reflux symptoms; PSQI, from 9.3±0.5 to 7.9±0.5 (P<0.01) and sleep diary, from 2.1±0.1 to 1.8±0.1 (P<0.01). On the other hand, the therapeutic effects of omeprazole and the placebo were not different in patients without reflux symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PPI administration is effective only for insomnia in patients with reflux symptoms.
| S-EPMC4077042 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The eradication rate of Helicobacter pylori following the standard triple therapy is declining. This study was conducted to test whether the addition of Lactobacillus reuteri to the standard triple therapy improves the eradication rates as well as the clinical and pathological aspects in H. pylori infection. METHODS:A total of 70 treatment-naïve patients were randomly assigned into group A (the L. reuteri treated group) and group B (the placebo control group). Patients were treated by the standard triple therapy for 2 weeks and either L. reuteri or placebo for 4 weeks. They were examined by symptom questionnaire, H. pylori antigen in stool, upper endoscopy with biopsies for rapid urease test and histopathological examination before treatment and 4 weeks after treatment. RESULTS:The eradication rate of H. pylori infection was 74.3% and 65.7% for both L. reuteri and placebo treated groups, respectively. There was a significant difference regarding the reported side effects, where patients treated with L. reuteri reported less diarrhea and taste disorders than placebo group. A significant difference within each group was observed after treatment regarding Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) scores; patients treated with L. reuteri showed more improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms than the placebo treated group. The severity and activity of H. pylori associated gastritis were reduced after 4 weeks of therapy in both groups. The L. reuteri treated group showed significant improvement compared with the placebo treated group. CONCLUSION:Triple therapy of H. pylori supplemented with L. reuteri increased eradication rate by 8.6%, improved the GSRS score, reduced the reported side effects and improved the histological features of H. pylori infection when compared with placebo-supplemented triple therapy.
| S-EPMC3871281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have reported controversial findings regarding the effects of melatonin on pain reduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin on pain among adults using a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RDBPCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched up to February 2020. Two of the authors independently evaluated eligibility of the studies based on the pre-determined criteria and extracted data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pain score change were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Out of 463 that met the initial criteria, a total of 30 trials, which involved 1967 participants with 983 in an intervention group and 984 in a control group, were included in the final analysis. In a random-effects meta-analysis, the use of melatonin reduced chronic pain in all the trials (5 studies, SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.34, I2 = 57.2%) and high-quality trials (4 studies, SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.23, I2 = 49.3%). Moreover, the use of melatonin significantly reduced acute postoperative pain (11 studies, SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.25, I2 = 93.0%). However, the subgroup meta-analysis of high-quality RDBPCTs showed no significant association between them (6 studies, SMD -0.21, 95 % CI -0.66 to 0.24, I2 = 82.4%). The current study suggests that melatonin might be used in treatment of chronic pain, while there is no sufficient evidence for acute postoperative or procedural pain. Further trials are warranted to confirm its analgesic effect.
| S-EPMC7291209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low-dose aspirin represents the best option in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, but its extensive use in primary prevention is limited by the occurrence of gastric mucosal lesions and increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the safety profile of a novel sublingual aspirin formulation in 200 healthy volunteers, randomly assigned to ten (n = 20 each) different 7-day once-daily treatment regimens. Gastric mucosal injury based on the modified Lanza score (MLS), the histopathology of gastric mucosa and the serum determination of thromboxane B2 (TXB2) and urinary 11-dehydro-TXB2 levels were evaluated at basal as well as after 7 days of each placebo or aspirin treatment regimen. In Groups A and B (placebo-oral and sublingual, respectively), no changes in MLS and in gastric mucosal micro-vessel diameter were found at day 7. In contrast, in Groups C and D (oral standard aspirin-100 and 50 mg daily, respectively), the median MLS was significantly increased. Very few changes were found in Groups E and F (standard sublingual aspirin-100 and 50 mg, respectively). Groups G and H (oral administration of micronized collagen-cogrinded aspirin) showed gastric protection compared to Groups C and D. Moreover, Groups I and L (sublingual collagen-cogrinded aspirin-100 and 50 mg, respectively) showed a significant reduction (Group I) or total abolition (Group L) of gastric mucosal lesions and no difference compared to the standard one in serum TXB2 and urinary 11-dehydro-TXB2 levels. In conclusion, our data show that the new formulation leads to a better safety profile compared to standard aspirin, representing a better therapeutic option for extended use in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.
| S-EPMC8779026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The gut microbiota has been implicated in obesity and cardiometabolic diseases, although evidence in humans is scarce. We investigated how gut microbiota manipulation by antibiotics (7-day administration of amoxicillin, vancomycin, or placebo) affects host metabolism in 57 obese, prediabetic men. Vancomycin, but not amoxicillin, decreased bacterial diversity and reduced Firmicutes involved in short-chain fatty acid and bile acid metabolism, concomitant with altered plasma and/or fecal metabolite concentrations. Adipose tissue gene expression of oxidative pathways was upregulated by antibiotics, whereas immune-related pathways were downregulated by vancomycin. Antibiotics did not affect tissue-specific insulin sensitivity, energy/substrate metabolism, postprandial hormones and metabolites, systemic inflammation, gut permeability, and adipocyte size. Importantly, energy harvest, adipocyte size, and whole-body insulin sensitivity were not altered at 8-week follow-up, despite a still considerably altered microbial composition, indicating that interference with adult microbiota by 7-day antibiotic treatment has no clinically relevant impact on metabolic health in obese humans. This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study had a 3-armed parallel design. Overweight/obese participants were randomized to oral intake of amoxicillin, vancomycin or placebo for 7 consecutive days. After an overnight fast, subcutaneous adipose tissue biopsies were taken that were subjected to gene expression profiling by array.
2016-07-15 | E-GEOD-76003 | biostudies-arrayexpress