ABSTRACT
Background: Only corticosteroids have confirmed mortality benefits in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). Rational use of costlier drugs with questionable benefits poses a great concern to hospital pharmacies in low middle-income countries.Aim: The present study aimed to assess the rational utilization of hospital supply tocilizumab and understand its clinical benefits in hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Methods: The Hospital Tocilizumab Committee (HTC) decision support system framework was developed to make patients eligible or ineligible for tocilizumab procurement from the hospital pharmacy. A total of 33 consecutive patients receiving tocilizumab were analyzed retrospectively in the 3-month study period. The records of the inpatient stay of the patients were observed for pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) laboratory work-up, hospital stay duration, and mortality benefit, if any. Patients were analyzed as ”died,” ”survived,” and ”composite” subgroups.Results: The study observed death as a final outcome in 48% of patients. The study observed a significant effect of tocilizumab on C-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.02) and ferritin (p = 0.018) levels on a 10-day follow-up when all patients were analyzed together. Rising and declining trends of RR and FiO2 were observed among the “died” (RR, p = 0.02; FiO2, p = 0.03) and survived (RR, p = 0.03; FiO2, p = 0.05) subgroups. The second dose of tocilizumab was received by 88% of survivors as against 50% of patients who died (p = 0.04).Conclusion: Hospital Tocilizumab Committee (HTC) was successfully established to continue the assessment of the costlier drug with uncertain treatment benefits. A repeat dose of tocilizumab may provide a mortality benefit in Asian Indians.
ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: The safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine is a cause of concern for many who have been vaccinated. The people have multiple concerns and fear regarding the adverse events of the vaccine. Thus, this study was undertaken to establish the safety profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) among the healthcare professionals. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. After taking clearance from the institutional ethics committee 1500 healthcare professionals, who had their vaccination in the past two weeks were selected. They were provided with an online survey proforma regarding adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of COVID-19 vaccine developed using google forms with an informed consent form affixed to it. Results: A total of 1036 individuals participated in the study. The mean and median (inter quartile range) age of the participants was 37.7 ±11.25 and 35 (29-46) yr, respectively. Of these, 52.1 per cent were female, 29.3 per cent were doctors, 33.4 per cent were nurses and 9.5 per cent were paramedical staff. Forty six per cent participants experienced one or more minor AEFIs such as pain, tenderness, redness, etc. at the injection site. Fatigue (31.75%), generalized feeling of unwell (28.57%), muscle pain (23.16%) and fever (21.71%) were the most commonly reported systemic AEFIs followed by headache (20.07%), dizziness (10.03%) and joint pains (15.25%). Most of them experienced these AEFIs within 24 h of the first dose of administration. About 42 per cent of the participants took oral antipyretics/analgesics for managing the AEFIs. Interpretation & conclusions: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine was found to be associated with mild local and systemic AEFIs that were more common after the first dose as compared to the second dose. There adverse events could be dealt with oral over-the-counter medications, with no requirement of hospitalization
ABSTRACT
A 26-year-old Indian male travelling from Liberia to India after being treated for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) was isolated at Delhi airport, even though he was symptom-free, because his semen was positive for Ebola virus. His blood, saliva and urine samples had tested negative for Ebola. There is no conclusive evidence of sexual transmission of EVD and the World Health Organisation does not recommend the isolation of convalescent patients whose blood is negative for Ebola virus. The decision of the Indian health authorities to isolate this individual is not only unscientific and excessively precautionary, but also raises various ethical and legal issues related to the potential violation of individual rights. The decision to impose individual restrictions during public health emergencies should be a transparent one that is guided by science, and should follow consultations among the various stakeholders. Further, such restrictions should be imposed only when alternative approaches are not sufficient or effective.
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to highlight three ethical considerations related to influenza pandemic planning and response: ethical allocation of scarce resources; obligations and duties of healthcare workers to treat patients, and the balance between conflicting individual and community interests. Among these, perhaps the most challenging question facing bioethics is how to allocate scarce, life-saving resources given the devastating social and economic ramifications of a pandemic. In such situations, the identification of clear overall goals for pandemic planning is essential in making difficult choices.