Effectiveness and Safety of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) among Healthcare Workers: A Seven-Month Follow-Up Study at Fifteen Central Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: During a pandemic, healthcare workers are at high risk of contracting COVID-19. To protect these important individuals, it is highly recommended that they receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Our study focused on evaluating the safety and efficacy of Egypt's first approved vaccine, the Sinopharm vaccine (BBIBP-CorV), and comparing these findings with other vaccines. METHODS: An observational study was conducted in fifteen triage and isolation hospitals, from the 1st of March until the end of September 2021. The study included fully vaccinated and unvaccinated participants, and we measured vaccine effectiveness (using 1-aHR), the incidence rate of severely to critically ill hospitalized cases, COVID-19-related work absenteeism, and the safety of the vaccine as outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1364 healthcare workers who were interviewed, 1228 agreed to participate. After taking the hazard ratio into account, the vaccine effectiveness was found to be 67% (95% CI, 80-43%) for symptomatic PCR-confirmed cases. The incidence rate ratio for hospitalization was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.15-1.31) in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group, and there was a significant reduction in absenteeism among the vaccinated group (p < 0.007). Most adverse events were mild and well tolerated. Vaccinated pregnant and lactating mothers did not experience any sentinel adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the BBIBP-CorV vaccine was effective in protecting healthcare workers from COVID-19.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

UPDATES: This is the twelfth version (eleventh update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and under way. The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as omicron) and subvariants are also changing the role of therapeutics. This update provides updated recommendations for remdesivir, addresses the use of combination therapy with corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with severe or critical covid-19, and modifies previous recommendations for the neutralising monoclonal antibodies sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in patients with non-severe covid-19. NEW OR UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: • Remdesivir: a conditional recommendation for its use in patients with severe covid-19; and a conditional recommendation against its use in patients with critical covid-19. • Concomitant use of IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib: these drugs may now be combined, in addition to corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical covid-19. • Sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab: strong recommendations against their use in patients with covid-19, replacing the previous conditional recommendations for their use. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS: When moving from new evidence to updated recommendations, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) considered a combination of evidence assessing relative benefits and harms, values and preferences, and feasibility issues. For remdesivir, new trial data were added to a previous subgroup analysis and provided sufficiently trustworthy evidence to demonstrate benefits in patients with severe covid-19, but not critical covid-19. The GDG considered benefits of remdesivir to be modest and of moderate certainty for key outcomes such as mortality and mechanical ventilation, resulting in a conditional recommendation. For baricitinib, the GDG considered clinical trial evidence (RECOVERY) demonstrating reduced risk of death in patients already receiving corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers. The GDG acknowledged that the clinical trials were not representative of the world population and that the risk-benefit balance may be less advantageous, particularly in patients who are immunosuppressed at higher risk of opportunistic infections (such as serious fungal, viral, or bacteria), those already deteriorating where less aggressive or stepwise addition of immunosuppressive medications may be preferred, and in areas where certain pathogens such as HIV or tuberculosis, are of concern. The panel anticipated that there would be situations where clinicians may opt for less aggressive immunosuppressive therapy or to combine medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are deteriorating. The decision to combine the medications will depend on their availability, and the treating clinician's perception of the risk-benefit balance associated with combination immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patient populations at risk of opportunistic infections who may have been under-represented in clinical trials. When making a strong recommendation against the use of monoclonal antibodies for patients with covid-19, the GDG considered in vitro neutralisation data demonstrating that sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab evaluated in clinical trials have meaningfully reduced neutralisation activity of the currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 and their subvariants. There was consensus among the panel that the absence of in vitro neutralisation activity strongly suggests absence of clinical effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies. However, there was also consensus regarding the need for clinical trial evidence in order to confirm clinical efficacy of new monoclonal antibodies that reliably neutralise the circulating strains in vitro. Whether emerging new variants and subvariants might be susceptible to sotrovimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or other anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies cannot be predicted. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­strong recommendations for systemic corticosteroids; IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) in combination with corticosteroids; and baricitinib as an alternative to IL-6 receptor blockers, in combination with corticosteroids. • Recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at highest risk of hospitalisation­a strong recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; conditional recommendations for molnupiravir and remdesivir. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids; a strong recommendation against convalescent plasma; a recommendation against fluvoxamine, except in the context of a clinical trial; and a strong recommendation against colchicine. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at low risk of hospitalisation­a conditional recommendation against nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. • Not recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a recommendation against convalescent plasma except in the context of a clinical trial; and a conditional recommendation against the JAK inhibitors ruxolitinib and tofacitinib. • Not recommended, regardless of covid-19 disease severity­a strong recommendations against hydroxychloroquine and against lopinavir/ritonavir; and a recommendation against ivermectin except in the context of a clinical trial. ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline.

Thoracic surgery in Egypt.

General thoracic surgery operations in Egypt are performed mainly by cardiothoracic surgeons and less oftenly by dedicated thoracic surgeons and general surgeons. This is mainly due to the relatively small number of thoracic surgeons in relation to population as only 210 cardiothoracic surgery specialists and 458 consultants are registered with the Egyptian Medical Syndicate (EMS) in a country with a population of more than 100 million people. Thoracic surgeons in Egypt are faced with a number of burdens, including the need to propagate the service to advanced technology infront of the obstacle of limited resources. Other burdens include higher incidence of TB, trauma and foreign body inhalation related to cultural backgrounds. More centres now are major video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) providing centres and others are specialized in more complex surgeries like complicated airway procedures and radical surgery for mesothelioma. As part of the international community, the COVID-19 pandemic has put more burdens on the thoracic surgery service as most centres have reduced their elective surgery workload to less than half of usual. Interestingly, the pandemic has allowed a self-referral screening programme with widespread Computed Tomography (CT) chest being performed among the population allowing thoracic surgeons to operate more on early stage lung cancer. The academic challenges for thoracic surgeons are even more with need for developing national databases. Nevertheless, thoracic surgeons in Egypt are optimistic regarding the future. The rising interest among the younger population will push training programs to meet the interests of enthusiastic junior surgeons. While the ancient history of thoracic surgery in Egypt seems to be extraordinary, the future perspectives promise to be more rewarding.

Clinical evaluation of pregnant women with SARS-COV2 pneumonia: a real-life study from Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the outcome of COVID-19 on pregnant women is so important. The published literature on the outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 is confusing. The aim of this study was to report our clinical experience about the effect of COVID-19 on pregnant women and to determine whether it was associated with increased mortality or an increase in the need for mechanical ventilation in this special category of patients. METHODS: This was a cohort study from some isolation hospitals of the Ministry of Health and Population, in eleven governorates, Egypt. The clinical data from the first 64 pregnant women with COVID-19 whose care was managed at some of the Egyptian hospitals from 14 March to 14 June 2020 as well as 114 non-pregnant women with COVID-19 was reviewed. RESULTS: The two groups did not show any significant difference regarding the main outcomes of the disease. Two cases in each group needed mechanical ventilation (p 0.617). Three cases (4.7%) died among the pregnant women and two (1.8%) died among the non-pregnant women (p 0.352). CONCLUSIONS: The main clinical outcomes of COVID-19 were not different between pregnant and non-pregnant women with COVID-19. Based on our findings, pregnancy did not exacerbate the course or mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Utility of Lung Ultrasound in Decision-making to Prioritize Hospital Admission for COVID-19 Patients: A Developing Country Perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the midst of this pandemic, planning the prioritization of hospital admissions for patients affected with COVID-19 should be of prime concern, particularly in healthcare settings with limited resources. Thus, in this study, we aimed to develop a novel approach to triage COVID-19 patients and attempt to prioritize their hospital admission using Lung Ultrasonography (LUS). The efficacy of LUS in triaging suspected COVID-19 patients and assessing the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia was evaluated; the findings were then compared with those obtained by chest computed tomography (CT). METHODS: This multicenter, cross-sectional study comprised 243 COVID-19 patients who presented to the emergency department in 3 major university hospitals in Egypt. LUS was performed by an experienced emergency or chest physician, according to the local protocol of each hospital. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were then collected from each patient. Each patient was subjected to chest CT scans and LUS. RESULTS: The mean age of the 243 patients was 46.7 ± 10.4 years. Ground-glass opacity, subpleural consolidation, translobar consolidation, and crazy paving were reported in the chest CT scans of 54.3%, 15.2%, 11.1%, and 8.6% of the patients, respectively. B-line artifacts were observed in 81.1% of the patients (confluent pattern, 18.9%). The LUS findings completely coincided with the CT findings (Kappa agreement value, 0.77) in 197 patients (81.1%) and offered a diagnostic sensitivity of 74%, diagnostic specificity of 97.9%, positive predictive value of 90.2%, and negative predictive value of 93.6% for the COVID-19 patients. Following the addition of O2 saturation to the lung imaging findings, the ultrasound method was able to demonstrate 100% sensitivity and specificity in accurately differentiating between severe and non-severe lung diseases. CONCLUSION: LUS with oxygen saturation might prove to be effective in prioritizing the hospital admission of COVID-19 patients, particularly in healthcare settings with limited resources.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.