Stigma, Sociodemographic Factors, and Clinical Factors Associated with Psychological Distress among COVID-19 Survivors during the Convalescence Period: A Multi-Centre Study in Malaysia

High rates of psychological distress among COVID-19 survivors and stigmatisation have been reported in both early and late convalescence. This study aimed to compare the severity of psychological distress and to determine the associations among sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, stigma, and psychological distress among COVID-19 survivors across two different cohorts at two different time points. Data were collected cross-sectionally in two groups at one month and six months post-hospitalisation among COVID-19 patient from three hospitals in Malaysia. This study assessed psychological distress and the level of stigma using the Kessler Screening Scale for Psychological Distress (K6) and the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) stigma scale, respectively. At one month after discharge, significantly lower psychological distress was found among retirees (B = −2.207, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = −4.139 to −0.068, p = 0.034), those who received up to primary education (B = −2.474, 95% CI = −4.500 to −0.521, p = 0.014), and those who had an income of more than RM 10,000 per month (B = −1.576, 95% CI = −2.714 to −0.505, p = 0.006). Moreover, those with a history of psychiatric illness [one month: (B = 6.363, 95% CI = 2.599 to 9.676, p = 0.002), six months: (B = 2.887, CI = 0.469–6.437, p = 0.038)] and sought counselling services [one month: (B = 1.737, 95% CI = 0.385 to 3.117, p = 0.016), six months: (B = 1.480, CI = 0.173–2.618, p = 0.032)] had a significantly higher severity of psychological distress at one month and six months after discharge from the hospital. The perceived stigma of being infected with COVID-19 contributed to greater severity of psychological distress. (B = 0.197, CI = 0.089–0.300, p = 0.002). Different factors may affect psychological distress at different periods of convalescence after a COVID-19 infection. A persistent stigma contributed to psychological distress later in the convalescence period.

Stigma, Sociodemographic Factors, and Clinical Factors Associated with Psychological Distress among COVID-19 Survivors during the Convalescence Period: A Multi-Centre Study in Malaysia.

High rates of psychological distress among COVID-19 survivors and stigmatisation have been reported in both early and late convalescence. This study aimed to compare the severity of psychological distress and to determine the associations among sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, stigma, and psychological distress among COVID-19 survivors across two different cohorts at two different time points. Data were collected cross-sectionally in two groups at one month and six months post-hospitalisation among COVID-19 patient from three hospitals in Malaysia. This study assessed psychological distress and the level of stigma using the Kessler Screening Scale for Psychological Distress (K6) and the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) stigma scale, respectively. At one month after discharge, significantly lower psychological distress was found among retirees (B = -2.207, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = -4.139 to -0.068, p = 0.034), those who received up to primary education (B = -2.474, 95% CI = -4.500 to -0.521, p = 0.014), and those who had an income of more than RM 10,000 per month (B = -1.576, 95% CI = -2.714 to -0.505, p = 0.006). Moreover, those with a history of psychiatric illness [one month: (B = 6.363, 95% CI = 2.599 to 9.676, p = 0.002), six months: (B = 2.887, CI = 0.469-6.437, p = 0.038)] and sought counselling services [one month: (B = 1.737, 95% CI = 0.385 to 3.117, p = 0.016), six months: (B = 1.480, CI = 0.173-2.618, p = 0.032)] had a significantly higher severity of psychological distress at one month and six months after discharge from the hospital. The perceived stigma of being infected with COVID-19 contributed to greater severity of psychological distress. (B = 0.197, CI = 0.089-0.300, p = 0.002). Different factors may affect psychological distress at different periods of convalescence after a COVID-19 infection. A persistent stigma contributed to psychological distress later in the convalescence period.

Efficacy of Early Treatment With Favipiravir on Disease Progression Among High-Risk Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of favipiravir in preventing disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. We aimed to determine its effect in preventing disease progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia among high-risk COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 public hospitals across Malaysia (February-July 2021) among 500 symptomatic, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients, aged ≥50 years with ≥1 comorbidity, and hospitalized within first 7 days of illness. Patients were randomized 1:1 to favipiravir plus standard care or standard care alone. Favipiravir was administered at 1800 mg 2×/day on day 1 followed by 800 mg 2×/day until day 5. The primary endpoint was rate of clinical progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia. Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 500 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.0] years; 258 women [51.6%]; 251 [50.2%] had COVID-19 pneumonia), 487 (97.4%) patients completed the trial. Clinical progression to hypoxia occurred in 46 (18.4%) patients on favipiravir plus standard care and 37 (14.8%) on standard care alone (OR, 1.30; 95% CI: .81-2.09; P = .28). All 3 prespecified secondary endpoints were similar between both groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 6 (2.4%) vs 5 (2.0%) (OR, 1.20; 95% CI: .36-4.23; P = .76), ICU admission in 13 (5.2%) vs 12 (4.8%) (OR, 1.09; 95% CI: .48-2.47; P = .84), and in-hospital mortality in 5 (2.0%) vs 0 (OR, 12.54; 95% CI: .76-207.84; P = .08) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among COVID-19 patients at high risk of disease progression, early treatment with oral favipiravir did not prevent their disease progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04818320).

COVID-19 death and kidney disease in a multiracial Asian country.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection and kidney disease (KD) carry a considerable risk of mortality. Understanding predictors of death and KD may help improve management and patient outcome. METHODS: This is a prospective multicentre observational study conducted in a multiracial Asian country to identify predictors of death and acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients from January to June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 6078 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 37.3 (±16.8) years, 71% were male, 59.4% Malay, 6.7% Chinese, 2.3% Indian and 31.7% other ethnicities. AKI was seen in 3.5% of patients while 1.6% had pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD). Overall case fatality rate (CFR) was 1.3%. Patients with KD (AKI and CKD) had CFR of 20%. Many factors were associated with increased risk of death and AKI. However, significant predictors of death after adjustment for covariates were age (>70 years), Chinese ethnicity, diabetes mellitus (DM) and KD. Adjusted predictors of AKI were age (>51 years), DM and severity at presentation. Chinese were 2.58 times more likely to die (p = .036) compared to Malay. Centre capacity to manage, ventilate and dialyze patients significantly influenced death. Among those with AKI, the most common symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea. They had lower absolute lymphocyte count, were more likely to be admitted to ICU, required more ventilation and longer hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Patient and centre factors influence death and AKI among COVID-19 patients. This study also demonstrates death disparities across different racial groups and centre capacities in this multiracial Asian country.

The role of procalcitonin in predicting risk of mechanical ventilation and mortality among moderate to severe COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Serum procalcitonin (PCT) has become an emerging prognostic biomarker of disease progression in patients with COVID-19. This study aims to determine the optimal cut-off value of PCT with regards to important clinical outcomes, especially for mechanical ventilation and all-cause mortality among moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A total of 319 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients hospitalized at the National Referral Hospital in December 2020 were included in the study retrospectively. Demographics, comorbidities, the severity of COVID-19 infection, laboratory and imaging findings, and treatment given were collected from the hospital information system for analysis. The optimal cut-point values for PCT were estimated in two levels. The first level involved 276 patients who had their PCT measured within 5 days following their admission. The second level involved 237 patients who had their PCT measured within 3 days following their admission. Further, a propensity score matching analysis was performed to determine the adjusted relative risk of patients with regards to various clinical outcomes according to the selected cut-point among 237 patients who had their PCT measured within 3 days. RESULTS: The results showed that a PCT level of 0.2 ng/mL was the optimal cut-point for prognosis especially for mortality outcome and the need for mechanical ventilation. Before matching, patients with PCT ≥ 0.2 ng/mL were associated with significantly higher odds in all investigated outcomes. After matching, patients with PCT > 0.2 ng/mL were associated with higher odds in all-cause mortality (OR: 4.629, 95% CI 1.387-15.449, p = 0.0127) and non-invasive ventilation (OR: 2.667, 95% CI 1.039-6.847, p = 0.0415). Furthermore, patients with higher PCT were associated with significantly longer days of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.0213). There was however no association between higher PCT level and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 2.010, 95% CI 0.828-4.878, p = 0.1229). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that a rise in PCT above 0.2 ng/mL is associated with an elevated risk in all-cause mortality, the need for non-invasive ventilation, and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation. The study offers concrete evidence for PCT to be used as a prognostication marker among moderate to severe COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities: The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed. Objective: To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events. Results: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.

Diagnostic accuracy of fresh drooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 in travelers.

BACKGROUND: The standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs. Major airports require COVID-19 screening, and saliva has the potential as a substitute specimen for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. We investigated the utility of fresh drooled saliva against NPS for COVID-19 screening of travelers. METHODS: We recruited 81 travelers and 15 non-travelers (including ten controls) prospectively within a mean of 3·22 days of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Each study participant provided 2 mls of early morning fresh drooled whole saliva separately into a sterile plastic container and GeneFiX™ saliva collection kit. The saliva specimens were processed within 4 h and tested for SARS-CoV-2 genes (E, RdRP, and N2) and the results compared to paired NPS RT-PCR for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Majority of travellers were asymptomatic (75·0%) with a mean age of 34·26 years. 77 travelers were RT-PCR positive at the time of hospitalization whilst three travelers had positive contacts. In this group, the detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 with NPS, whole saliva, and GeneFiX™ were comparable (89·3%, 50/56; 87·8%, 43/49; 89·6%, 43/48). Both saliva collection methods were in good agreement (Kappa = 0·69). There was no statistical difference between the detection rates of saliva and NPS (p > 0·05). Detection was highest for the N2 gene whilst the E gene provided the highest viral load (mean = 27·96 to 30·10, SD = 3·14 to 3·85). Saliva specimens have high sensitivity (80·4%) and specificity (90·0%) with a high positive predictive value of 91·8% for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 screening is a simple accurate technique comparable with NPS RT-PCR.

QT prolongation associated with hydroxychloroquine and protease inhibitors in COVID-19.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Hydroxychloroquine and protease inhibitors were widely used as off-label treatment options for COVID-19 but the safety data of these drugs among the COVID-19 population are largely lacking. Drug-induced QTc prolongation is a known adverse reaction of hydroxychloroquine, especially during chronic treatment. However, when administered concurrently with potential pro-arrhythmic drugs such as protease inhibitors, the risk of QTc prolongation imposed on these patients is not known. We aim to investigate the incidence of QTc prolongation events and potential factors associated with its occurrence in COVID-19 population. METHODS: We included 446 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive patients taking at least one treatment drug for COVID-19 within a period of one month (March-April 2020). In addition to COVID-19-related treatment (HCQ/PI), concomitant drugs with risks of QTc prolongation were considered. We defined QTc prolongation as QTc interval of ≥470 ms in postpubertal males, and ≥480 ms in postpubertal females. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: QTc prolongation events occurred in 28/446 (6.3%) patients with an incidence rate of 1 case per 100 person-days. A total of 26/28 (93%) patients who had prolonged QTc intervals received at least two pro-QT drugs. Multivariate analysis showed that HCQ and PI combination therapy had five times higher odds of QTc prolongation as compared to HCQ-only therapy after controlling for age, cardiovascular disease, SIRS and the use of concurrent QTc-prolonging agents besides HCQ and/or PI (OR 5.2; 95% CI, 1.11-24.49; p = 0.036). Independent of drug therapy, presence of SIRS resulted in four times higher odds of QTc prolongation (OR 4.3; 95% CI, 1.66-11.06; p = 0.003). In HCQ-PI combination group, having concomitant pro-QT drugs led to four times higher odds of QTc prolongation (OR 3.8; 95% CI, 1.53-9.73; p = 0.004). Four patients who had prolonged QTc intervals died but none were cardiac-related deaths. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: In our cohort, hydroxychloroquine monotherapy had low potential to increase QTc intervals. However, when given concurrently with protease inhibitors which have possible or conditional risk, the odds of QTc prolongation increased fivefold. Interestingly, independent of drug therapy, the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) resulted in four times higher odds of QTc prolongation, leading to the postulation that some QTc events seen in COVID-19 patients may be due to the disease itself. ECG monitoring should be continued for at least a week from the initiation of treatment.

Serology surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in COVID-19 designated facilities in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections are well documented. Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients. We aim to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCW who did not come to medical attention. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 400 HCW from the National Public Health Laboratory and two COVID-19 designated public hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia between 13/4/2020 and 12/5/2020. Quota sampling was used to ensure representativeness of HCW involved in direct and indirect patient care. All participants answered a self-administered questionnaire and blood samples were taken to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by surrogate virus neutralization test. FINDINGS: The study population comprised 154 (38.5%) nurses, 103 (25.8%) medical doctors, 47 (11.8%) laboratory technologists and others (23.9%). A majority (68.9%) reported exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the past month within their respective workplaces. Adherence to personal protection equipment (PPE) guidelines and hand hygiene were good, ranging from 91-100% compliance. None (95% CI: 0, 0.0095) of the participants had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected, despite 182 (45.5%) reporting some symptoms one month prior to study recruitment. One hundred and fifteen (29%) of participants claimed to have had contact with known COVID-19 persons outside of their workplace. INTERPRETATION: Zero seroprevalence among HCW suggests a low incidence of undiagnosed COVID-19 infection in our healthcare setting during the first local wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within healthcare facilities can be prevented by adherence to infection control measures and appropriate use of PPE.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for severe COVID-19 infections in Malaysia: A nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 emerged as a major public health outbreak in late 2019. Malaysia reported its first imported case on 25th January 2020, and adopted a policy of extensive contact tracing and hospitalising of all cases. We describe the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases nationwide and determine the risk factors associated with disease severity. METHOD: Clinical records of all RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases aged ≥12 years admitted to 18 designated hospitals in Malaysia between 1st February and 30th May 2020 with complete outcomes were retrieved. Epidemiological history, co-morbidities, clinical features, investigations, management and complications were captured using REDCap database. Variables were compared between mild and severe diseases. Univariate and multivariate regression were used to identify determinants for disease severity. FINDINGS: The sample comprised of 5889 cases (median age 34 years, male 71.7%). Majority were mild (92%), and 3.3% required intensive care, with 80% admitted within the first five days. Older age (≥51 years), underlying chronic kidney disease and chronic pulmonary disease, fever, cough, diarrhoea, breathlessness, tachypnoea, abnormal chest radiographs and high serum CRP (≥5 mg/dL) on admission were significant determinants for severity (p<0.05). The case fatality rate was 1.2%, and the three commonest complications were liver injuries (6.7%), kidney injuries (4%), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (2.3%). INTERPRETATIONS: Lower case fatality rate was possibly contributed by young cases with mild diseases and early hospitalisation. Abnormal chest radiographic findings in elderly with tachypnoea require close monitoring in the first five days to detect early deterioration.