ABSTRACT
During COVID-19 pandemic;regular use of disinfectant become a must leading some times to misuse and many cases of toxicities appear. To examine toxicity correlates of Egyptian disinfectant misuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-report online survey conducted between;September 2nd to September 16th, 2020 of Adults from the Egypt recruited via social media. Outcomes included Socio-demographic and baseline characteristics of the participants (Age, Sex, Educational level, Residence, type of Work, Work require direct contact with people, frequency and type disinfectant use), Knowledge and practice of the studied participants about utilization of disinfectant during the COVID 19 pandemic, Prevalence of toxicity with disinfectant, mode of exposure and manifestations among the participants during COVID 19 pandemic, of toxicity symptoms duration and attitude of management. Correlates are risk factors for toxicity exposure, satisfaction factors of practice and knowledge of disinfectants utilization. The participants included 558 adults (mean=30.9, 73.3% female). Most of participants show satisfactory knowledge 64.3% and practice 84.6% of disinfectant utilization during the pandemic. Disinfectant toxicity occurred in 31.5% mainly through skin contact 40.9% and inhalation 37.5%. Multiple respiratory 93% and dermal 83% were the main symptoms of toxicity. The toxicity symptoms continue for hours 30.7% with 50% home management without consultation. Female sex, regular use of disinfectant and bad ventilation were risk factors for toxicity exposure. Conclusions: Public messaging should continue to emphasize avoidance of high-risk practices such as unsafe preparation of cleaning and disinfectant solutions and inhalation or ingestion of cleaners and disinfectants with that message to prevent transmission of COVID 19 in household settings.
ABSTRACT
As of January, 2021, nearly 2-million deaths worldwide have been attributed to COVID-19, which is caused by SARS-CoV-2. Much of the mortality has been associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia. The aims of this study are to estimate the severity of disease among patients from COVID-19 units in Diyala province and to estimate serum cytokines levels of interleukin-10, Interleukine-6 and Interferon gamma among studied patient groups. The data accumulated throughout this selective case control study which were extended from September 1st, 2020, to December 1st, 2020. A total of 176 human serum samples were collected, and subdivided into four groups moderate, sever, critical and control, each group comprised of 44 individuals. Analysis of data was carried out using the available statistical package of SPSS-20 (Statistical Packages for Social Sciences- version 20). The results revealed that the rate of infection with COVID-19 is higher in male (65.1%) than female (34.8%). The result of cytokines showed highly significant increase in the mean of interleukin-10 and interferon gamma and significant increase in interlukin-6 in patients with Covid-19 when compared to the control group, p-value = 0,000, p-value = 0.003, p-value = 0.016, respectively. The comparison of cytokine results among Covid-19 patients revealed that the Interleukin-10 showed significant increase in critical group when compared with moderate group p-value = 0.041, but don't showed any significant differences when compared the sever group with critical, and moderate groups p-value = 0.643 and p-value = 0.114, respectively. Interleukin-6 showed highly significant differences it is increased in critical group compared with moderate group and also increase compared to in severe group pvalue = 0.003, p-value = 0.013, respectively. While interleukin-6 showed no significant differences between severe and moderate groups p-value = 0.616. Interferon gamma showed no significant differences among moderate, severe and critical groups p-value = 0.527, p-value = 895, p-value = 447, respectively. In conclusions, there's a significant association in disease severity and elevated of circulating levels of cytokines Interleukine-10 and Interleukine-6, the rate of infection with COVID-19 is higher in male than female.
ABSTRACT
Objective: Coronavirus pandemic has spread globally. It has affected people mentally and economically. These types of pandemics often lead to post-traumatic stress traumatic syndrome among people. Research data is needed to know the PTSD due to the coronavirus pandemic among the general population. Materials and methods: This study is cross-sectional. Data was collected in 3 days from the general population of Karachi through an online questionnaire regarding age, gender, education, profession, precautionary measures, awareness related to COVID, satisfaction related to COVID, Health information awareness. IESR scale was used to assess post-traumatic stress syndrome. A total of 241 respondents were involved. Results: Moreover, 11.2% had partial PTSD, 4.1% had PTSD and 34.9% had PTSD high enough to suppress the immune system. Among the respondents majority belong to age group 20 to 30, female, student, undergraduate, were aware of COVID, tested positive for COVID, knew someone tested positive for COVID, applied precautionary measures, avoided going out, worried about your family members getting COVID, satisfied with health information available and were aware of health information available. Age group 20 to 30, Male gender, matric education level, housewives, tested positive for COVID, applying precautionary measures, applying social distancing, having present physical symptoms, worrying about your family members getting COVID, was associated with high IESR score and PTSD (p<0.05). Awareness related to COVID-19 and avoiding going out was associated with low IESR scores and were protective factors related to PTSD(p<0.05). Tested positive for COVID, presence of past physical symptoms, satisfaction with health information available, and awareness of health information available were not significantly associated with IESR score and PTSD (P>0.05) Conclusion: During the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic more than half of the respondents reported partial to severe PTSD. Age group 20 to 30, Male gender, matric education level, housewives, tested positive for COVID, applying precautionary measures, applying social distancing, having present physical symptoms of COVID, worrying about your family members getting COVID are the vulnerable groups which need urgent attention related to PTSD. Awareness related to COVID-19 and avoiding going out are protective factors related to PTSD hence these factors can be considered by higher authorities to make psychological policies.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The @Gijournal (#GIJC) is the first Gastroenterology and Hepatology focused online journal club on Twitter. Since its inception 18 months ago, it has garnered an international following.We aimed to assess its effectiveness as an educational platform by using Kirkpatrick's evaluation model. Methods: A 12-item survey was posted online via the Twitter account of @Gijournal (#gijc). Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation model (reaction, learning, behavior, and results) was applied to analyze impact and effectiveness. Results: Out of the 189 responders, most were aged from 31-40 years (60.8%). There was a broad geographical distribution with most of the respondents from North America and Europe (70.9%). [1302] Table 1. 1N = 794 responses for this question.2N = 795 responses for this question.3”Other” included: GI psychologist (1), Hereditary Cancers (1), Internal Medicine (1), Pancreatology (2), Functional GI (2), Fellowship notated with no specific specialty indicated (3), Esophageal Diseases (3), Nutrition (3), and Pediatric GI (5).4N = 757 for this question.5N = 690 for this question.6N 5 348 for this question.7N = 373 for this question.8N = 414 for this question.9N = 788 responses for this question.10N = 795 responses for this question.11US 5 United States.12Responses were received from: Bangladesh (4), Middle East region (9), Mexico (3), Canada (9), South America (7), Pakistan (4), Western Europe (6), Eastern Europe (3), India (9), Southeast Asia (4), Dominican Republic (2), and Jamaica (2).13N = 794 responses for this question.14”Other” included self-employed (16) or retired (4).15N = 790 responses for this question.16N = 792 responses for this question.17N=795 responses for this question.18Participants were exited from the survey if they answered “no, I do not want a child and/or children” to this question.19N 5 794 responses for this question.20N = 792 responses for this question.21N = 108 “yes” responses for this question.22Free-text comments included: “pay disparity for female providers”, “lack of family planning education”, and “impact of volume/RVU forgiveness and impact on parental leave”.23N = 601 responses for this question.24A chi square analysis (n = 599) was performed to determine if there was a difference in the decision to delay and/or defer by sex, revealing there is no significant association (p =0.252;54.0% male and 58.7% of female respondents chose to defer/delay).25N = 340 individuals that answered, with N = 192/340 providing multiple reasons for delay and/or deferring having a child.26Total number of responses received 5 789.27Percents were calculated using the number of individuals for each reason provided, thus the total for this cell will be larger than 100% (as there were a large number of multiple responses).28”Other” responses included: “COVID-19 delayed fertility treatments”, “Females in GI are judged very differently, I was asked at my Fellowship interview if I planned on becoming pregnant”, “I had a child before Fellowship, it was very difficult and restrained career choices”.29N = 672 responses for this question.30N = 135 individuals that answered, with 97/ 135 indicating they used more than one type of assistive medicine.31Percents were calculated using the total number of individuals for each type of assistive medicine, thus the total for this cell will be higher than 100%.32Total number of responses received 5 242.33N = 684 responses for this question.34N = 635 responses for this question.35N=536 responses for this question.36N 5 527 responses for this question.37”Other” responses included: prior to Medical school (3), Not working (1), Military (3), Veterans Affairs' (1), and Clinical NIH Associate (1).38N = 536 responses for this question.39A chi square analysis (n=534) was performed to determine if there was a difference in the length of leave (0-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 121 weeks, or “other”) and sex, revealing there is a significant association (p<0.001. 68.3% male and 34.4% female respondents indicating they took 6 o less weeks of parental leave. 9.1% male and 51.1% female respondents indicating they took 7-12 weeks of parental leave) between sex and length of parental leave taken.40The majority of “other” responses indicated that no leave was taken (47) and use of vacation time instead of parental leave (5).41N = 516 responses for this question.42N 5 486 for this question.43The majority of “other” responses indicated that vacation and/or PTO was used instead of parental leave (16), selected other comments included: “Because our child was adopted, this was not covered by the institutional leave policy”, and “I was in Fellowship and risked losing my spot in the program if I took leave”.44N = 397 responses for this question.45For partial pay, the mean reported percentage was 54.5% of salary benefits (SD 5 17.1), with a range of 20-85%.46N = 320 responses for this question.47N = 218 responses for this question.48N 5 420 responses for this question.49The majority of the “other” responses indicated that no unpaid leave was taken (46), selected other comments included: “I was afraid to take any extra leave”, and “I did not want to take unpaid leave because I would have had to “make up” or delay my training/graduation (3)”.50N = 296 responses for this question.51N = 513 responses for this question.52N = 475 responses for this question.53N = 320 individuals answered, with 227/320 indicating they incurred more than one consequence as a result of taking parental leave.54Percents were calculated using the total number of individuals for each consequence reported, thus the total for this cell will be higher than 100%.55Total number of responses received 5 690.56Selected “other” comments include: “I was threatened in my Fellowship that I would not be allowed to graduate if I took leave”, and “I didn't receive training in fluoroscopy because I took leave”.57N = 519 responses for this question.58N=279 responses for this question.59A chi square analysis was performed to determine if there was an association between fluoroscopy exposure and subsequent pregnancy complication, revealing there is no significant association between fluoroscopy exposure and subsequent pregnancy complication(s) (p 5 0.383. 76.4% of women exposed to fluoroscopy experienced a complication vs. 65.9% of women not exposed/opted out).60N = 260 responses for this question.61N = 177 individuals answered, with 118/177 indicating they experienced more than one pregnancy complication.62Percents were calculated using the total number of individuals for each pregnancy complication reported, thus the total for this cell will be higher than 100%.63Total number of responses received 5 438.64”Other” responses included: Carpal tunnel (2), Pulmonary Emboli (2), Oligohydraminos (2), Hypotension (1), Retrovaginal fistula (1), Pubic symphysis dysfunction (1), Fetomaternal hemorrhage (1), Recurrent vaginal bleeding (1), Post-partum anxiety (1), Placental abruption (1), Premature rupture of membranes (1), Intra-abdominal abscess (1), Intrauterine Fetal Demise (1), Norovirus from occupational exposure (1), Micro-preemie (1), Gestational hypertension (1), Fetal Cystic lesions (1), COVID-19 (1).65N = 258 responses for this question.66N = 134 individuals answered, with 73/134 indicating they had difficulty with more than one accommodation during or after pregnancy.67Percents were calculated using the total number of individuals that reported experiencing difficulty with accommodations during or after pregnancy, thus the total for this cell will be higher than 100%.68Total number of responses received 5 281.69Selected other comments include: “Would breastfeed in closets”, and “no time off for infant or post-partum appointments”.70N = 226 responses for this question.7186.8% of women (N = 231/266) reported that they breastfed.72N = 218 responses for this question..
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has placed enormous challenges on the health sector. Diagnosis is one of these challenges, where a clinical presentation may suggest a disease other than COVID-19. In this review we describe many presentations unrelated to the respiratory system. The ACE2 receptor is present in a wide variety of body tissues and it appears that this may be a link with the clinical pathology. To find these data we searched the major academic research engines, Google Scholar, and Pubmed, as well as the most recent case reports and original research published in specialized journals.
ABSTRACT
Since the emergence of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic beginning in China in 2019, all health workers have faced a difficult challenge. One challenge is a clinical picture in some cases, where the presenting symptoms do not fit with the usual pattern. In this report, we present a case whose initial symptoms were headache, dizziness, and vomiting suggesting malaria bearing in mind that the patient was from Sudan, where there is a high incidence of malaria. These unusual symptoms may be attributed to the presence of the receptor ACE2, in various body systems. The mild pathological course may be related to the patient's age and the fact that diabetic patients are less likely to develop lung injury, hence the absence of respiratory symptoms. We recommend that physicians are alert to the variety of different presenting features of COVID-19 and test with Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) whenever there is doubt.