Blood ozonization in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 pneumonia: a single centre experience

The emerging outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide. We prescribed some promising medication to our patients with mild to moderate pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, however such drugs as chloroquine, hydrossichloroquine, azithromycin, antivirals (lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat) and immunomodulating agents (steroids, tocilizumab) were not confirmed as effective against SARS-CoV2. We, therefore, started to use auto-hemotherapy treated with an oxygen/ozone (O2/O3) gaseous mixture as adjuvant therapy. In Udine University Hospital (Italy) we performed a case\u2013control study involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 with mild to moderate pneumonia. Clinical presentations are based upon clinical phenotypes identified by the Italian Society of Emergency and Urgency Medicine (SIMEU\u2014Societ\ue0 Italiana di Medicina di Emergenza-Urgenza) and patients that met criteria of phenotypes 2 to 4 were treated with best available therapy (BAT), with or without O3-autohemotherapy. 60 patients were enrolled in the study: 30 patients treated with BAT and O2/O3 mixture, as adjuvant therapy and 30 controls treated with BAT only. In the group treated with O3-autohemotherapy plus BAT, patients were younger but with more severe clinical phenotypes. A decrease of SIMEU clinical phenotypes was observed (2.70 \ub1 0.67 vs. 2.35 \ub1 0.88, p = 0.002) in all patients during hospitalization but this clinical improvement\ua0was statistically significant only in O3-treated patients (2.87 \ub1 0.78 vs. 2.27 \ub1 0.83, p < 0.001), differently to the control group (2.53 \ub1 0.51 vs. 2.43 \ub1 0.93, p = 0.522). No adverse events were observed associated with the application of O2/O3 gaseous mixture. O2/O3 therapy as adjuvant therapy could be useful in mild to moderate pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2. Randomized prospective study is ongoing [Clinical Trials.gov ID: Z7C2CA5837]

Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested the potential advantages of albumin administration in patients with severe sepsis, its efficacy has not been fully established. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 1818 patients with severe sepsis, in 100 intensive care units (ICUs), to receive either 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. In the albumin group, the target serum albumin concentration was 30 g per liter or more until discharge from the ICU or 28 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause at 90 days, the number of patients with organ dysfunction and the degree of dysfunction, and length of stay in the ICU and the hospital. RESULTS: During the first 7 days, patients in the albumin group, as compared with those in the crystalloid group, had a higher mean arterial pressure (P=0.03) and lower net fluid balance (P<0.001). The total daily amount of administered fluid did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.10). At 28 days, 285 of 895 patients (31.8%) in the albumin group and 288 of 900 (32.0%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk in the albumin group, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14; P=0.94). At 90 days, 365 of 888 patients (41.1%) in the albumin group and 389 of 893 (43.6%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; P=0.29). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloids, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not improve the rate of survival at 28 and 90 days. (Funded by the Italian Medicines Agency; ALBIOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00707122.

Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested the potential advantages of albumin administration in patients with severe sepsis, its efficacy has not been fully established. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 1818 patients with severe sepsis, in 100 intensive care units (ICUs), to receive either 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. In the albumin group, the target serum albumin concentration was 30 g per liter or more until discharge from the ICU or 28 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause at 90 days, the number of patients with organ dysfunction and the degree of dysfunction, and length of stay in the ICU and the hospital. RESULTS: During the first 7 days, patients in the albumin group, as compared with those in the crystalloid group, had a higher mean arterial pressure (P=0.03) and lower net fluid balance (P<0.001). The total daily amount of administered fluid did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.10). At 28 days, 285 of 895 patients (31.8%) in the albumin group and 288 of 900 (32.0%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk in the albumin group, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14; P=0.94). At 90 days, 365 of 888 patients (41.1%) in the albumin group and 389 of 893 (43.6%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; P=0.29). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloids, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not improve the rate of survival at 28 and 90 days