METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a single emergency department. Patients with acute long bone fractures and numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores ≥ 6 following an initial dose of intravenous morphine were assigned to receive either a LDK (0.3 mg/kg) over 15 min or intravenous MOR at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg administered over 5 min. Throughout a 120-min observation period, patients were regularly evaluated for pain level (0-10), side effects, and the need for additional rescue analgesia.

RESULTS: A total of 58 subjects participated, with 27 in the MOR group and 31 in the LDK group. Demographic variables and baseline NRS scores were comparable between the MOR (8.3 ± 1.3) and LDK (8.9 ± 1.2) groups. At 30 min, the LDK group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in NRS scores (3.1 ± 2.03) compared to the MOR group (1.8 ± 1.59) (p = 0.009). Similarly, at 60 min, there were significant differences in mean NRS score reductions (LDK 3.5 ± 2.17; MOR mean reduction = 2.4, ± 1.84) with a p-value of 0.04. No significant differences were observed at other time intervals. The incidence of dizziness was higher in the LDK group at 19.4% (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION: Short infusion low-dose ketamine, as an adjunct to morphine, is effective in reducing pain during the initial 30 to 60 min and demonstrated comparability to intravenous morphine alone in reducing pain over the subsequent 60 min for acute long bone fractures. However, it was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness.

METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, international registry on the management of H. pylori (European Registry on H. pylori Management). All infected and culture-diagnosed adult patients registered in the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture from 2013 to 2021 were included.

RESULTS: A total of 2,852 naive patients with culture results were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 22%, 27%, and 18%, respectively. The most effective treatment, regardless of resistance, were the 3-in-1 single capsule with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline (91%) and the quadruple with bismuth, offering optimal cure rates even in the presence of bacterial resistance to clarithromycin or metronidazole. The concomitant regimen with tinidazole achieved an eradication rate of 99% (90/91) vs 84% (90/107) with metronidazole. Triple schedules, sequential, or concomitant regimen with metronidazole did not achieve optimal results. A total of 1,118 non-naive patients were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 49%, 41%, and 24%, respectively. The 3-in-1 single capsule (87%) and the triple therapy with levofloxacin (85%) were the only ones that provided encouraging results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial involved treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients. Ninety patients received standard triple therapy for 2 weeks before receiving either a probiotic or placebo for 4 weeks. The posttreatment eradication rate was assessed via a 14 C urea breath test in Week 8. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire and an interview on treatment adverse effects were conducted during this study.

RESULTS: The eradication rate was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group, with a 22.2% difference in the intention-to-treat analysis (91.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007) and 24.3% difference in the per-protocol analysis (93.2% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007). The probiotic group showed significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in indigestion, constipation, abdominal pain, and total GSRS scores. The probiotic group showed significantly greater reductions in GSRS scores than the placebo group: indigestion (4.34 ± 5.00 vs. 1.78 ± 5.64; p = 0.026), abdominal pain (2.64 ± 2.88 vs. 0.89 ± 3.11; p = 0.007), constipation (2.34 ± 3.91 vs. 0.64 ± 2.92; p = 0.023), and total score (12.41 ± 12.19 vs. 4.24 ± 13.72; p = 0.004). The probiotic group reported significantly fewer adverse headache (0% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.012) and abdominal pain (0% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.026) effects.

DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING: Ten acute care hospitals in India.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults <65 years old intended for hospital admission with moderate/severe COVID-19 disease (respiratory rate ≥24 breaths per minute or oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air).

INTERVENTION: DMX-200 120 mg two times per day, or placebo, on background of titratable candesartan commencing at 4 mg two times per day, for 28 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease severity on a modified WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) on day 14. Secondary outcomes included the WHO scale at days 28, 60, 90 and 180; intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory failure or death within 28 days; length of hospitalisation; and requirement for ventilatory support or dialysis.

RESULTS: Between December 2021 and August 2022, 518 people were screened, with 49 randomised to DMX-200 or placebo on a background of candesartan. The study was terminated early due to recruitment barriers, including an external requirement to restrict enrolment to adults <65 years old, contributing to a 91% screen failure rate. The median WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) score at day 14 for both groups was 1 (IQR 1-1), indicating most participants were discharged with no limitations on activities by this time. Formal comparison was not performed due to the small sample size. One participant receiving DMX-200 died of COVID-19 disease progression. No participants required ICU admission, ventilation or dialysis. Median length of hospitalisation in both groups was 6 days (IQR 6-7 days). WHO scale scores were similar at 28, 60, 90 and 180 days.

CONCLUSION: Due to recruitment barriers, the study was unable to determine whether DMX-200 improves clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19.