ABSTRACT
Objective: Various metals play role in the survival and pathogenesis of the invasive fungal disease. The objectives of this study were to compare the levels of heavy metals in patients with chronic invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (CIFR) and healthy controls, and to analyze their role in disease outcome. Methods: Twenty-three patients (15 with invasive mucormycosis and 8 with invasive aspergillosis, Group 1), and 14 healthy controls (Group 2) were recruited. Blood samples were collected from each group into ion-free tubes and analyzed for serum levels of Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Gallium (Ga), Arsenic (As), Selenium (Se), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Cadmium (Cd), and Lead (Pb). The final outcome of the patients during their hospital stay was categorized clinico-radiologically as improved or worsened, or death. Results: The levels of all metals were higher in Group 1 except for As and Pb. However, the differences in Cu (p=0.0026), Ga (p=0.002), Cd (p=0.0027), and Pb (p=0.0075) levels were significant. Higher levels of Zn (p=0.009), Se (p=0.020), and Rb (p=0.016) were seen in the invasive aspergillosis subgroup. Although Zn (p=0.035), As (p=0.022), and Sr (p=0.002) levels were higher in patients with improved outcome, subgroup analysis showed no differences. Conclusion: The levels of some heavy metals in CIFR significantly differ from those of the general population and also vary with the type of the disease and its outcome. These levels may not have a direct effect on the outcome of the patient, but they do play a role in the pathogenesis of the invading fungus.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An efficient sampling is one of the key methods to identify all those affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To analyze how efficient setting up of a central sampling team would be to prevent any outbreak within the institution by minimizing the movement of suspected COVID-19 patients admitted in the inpatient wards. The secondary objective was to train maximum resident doctors to collect samples of admitted patients. METHODOLOGY: A central sampling team comprising of resident doctors from various departments was made who did sampling of the suspected COVID-19 inpatients admitted under various specialties. RESULTS: There were a total of 341 patients [209 males (61.29%), 132 females (38.7%)] and 335 patients underwent sampling. There was a positive correlation between: (1) number of calls from a department vs percentage of positive samples in that department [Pearson correlation coefficient (R) = 0.47; P = 0.026], (2) number of samples taken by resident of a particular department from central sampling team vs number of positive samples taken by resident of that department [R = 0.8739, P = 0.01] and (3) number of visits to a department vs number of residents trained in that department [R = 0.93; P = 0.00001]. CONCLUSION: Formulation of a central sampling team led to changes like a separate donning and doffing area in each ward and training of many resident doctors posted in different wards. This made each ward self-sufficient in collection of samples. This venture also ensured minimal movement of suspected COVID-19 patients in the hospital and thus least exposure to the hospital staff.