Search

A methanol poisoning outbreak occurred in Iran during the initial months of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of the outbreak in terms of hospitalizations and deaths. A cross-sectional linkage study was conducted based on the hospitalization data collected from thirteen referral toxicology centers throughout Iran as well as mortality data obtained from the Iranian Legal Medicine Organization (LMO). Patient data were extracted for all cases aged > 19 years with toxic alcohol poisoning during the study period from February until June 2020. A total of 795 patients were hospitalized due to methanol poisoning, of whom 84 died. Median [interquartile ratio; IQR] age was 32 [26, 40] years (range 19-91 years). Patients had generally ingested alcohol for recreational motives (653, 82.1%) while 3.1% (n = 25) had consumed alcohol-based hand sanitizers to prevent or cure COVID-19 infection. Age was significantly lower in survivors than in non-survivors (P < 0.001) and in patients without sequelae vs. with sequelae (P = 0.026). Twenty non-survivors presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score > 8, six of whom were completely alert on presentation to the emergency departments. The time from alcohol ingestion to hospital admission was not significantly different between provinces. In East Azerbaijan province, where hemodialysis was started within on average 60 min of admission, the rate of sequelae was 11.4% (compared to 19.6% average of other provinces)-equivalent to a reduction of the odds of sequelae by 2.1 times [95% CI 1.2, 3.7; p = 0.009]. Older patients were more prone to fatal outcome and sequelae, including visual disturbances. Early arrival at the hospital can facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment and may reduce long-term morbidity from methanol poisoning. Our data thus suggest the importance of raising public awareness of the risks and early symptoms of methanol intoxication., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of naproxen 500 mg twice daily (BID) versus naproxen 500 mg as needed (PRN) for treatment of ankle sprain., Methods: In this seven-day, randomized, parallel group trial, 135 patients with ankle sprain occurring less than 48 hours prior to the first dose of study medication were randomized to receive naproxen 500 mg BID (67 patients) and naproxen 500 mg as needed (PRN) (68 patients). The ankle pain was assessed at rest and on full weight bearing using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst imaginable pain). Ankle swelling was assessed as a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (no swelling) to 3 (severe swelling) rated by the investigator. The primary efficacy end point was the patient's assessment of ankle pain via NRS and the degree of swelling on day seven., Results: Results showed a significant decrease in pain on weight bearing, pain at rest and the extent of swelling (P<0.001) in both groups, but there was no substantial difference between the two groups (P>0.05) after seven days. Assessing the safety profile of the two different dosing, 13.3% of the naproxen BID group and 6.7% of the as needed group had adverse events, showing that the as needed regimen was safer (P<0.001)., Conclusion: Results showed that naproxen as needed may reduce the pain and edema of the sprained ankle with no significant difference compared to the BID regimen, while it possesses better safety profile and lower total drug use.