Oxygen Saturation in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients and Its Relation to Colchicine Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study with an Updated Systematic Review.

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a cytokine storm-blocking agent for COVID-19 due to its efficacy as an anti-inflammatory drug. The findings of the studies were contentious on the role of colchicine in preventing deterioration in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19-hospitalized patients. Design: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out at three major isolation hospitals in Alexandria (Egypt), covering multiple centers. In addition, a systematic review was conducted by searching six different databases for published studies on the utilization of colchicine in patients with COVID-19 until March 2023. The primary outcome measure was to determine whether colchicine could decrease the number of days that the patient needed supplemental oxygen. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate whether colchicine could reduce the number of hospitalization days and mortality rate in these patients. Results: Out of 515 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 411 were included in the survival analysis. After adjusting for the patients' characteristics, patients not receiving colchicine had a shorter length of stay (median: 7.0 vs. 6.0 days) and fewer days of supplemental oxygen treatment (median: 6.0 vs. 5.0 days), p < 0.05, but there was no significant difference in mortality rate. In a subgroup analysis based on oxygen equipment at admission, patients admitted on nasal cannula/face masks who did not receive colchicine had a shorter duration on oxygen supply than those who did [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.76 (CI 0.59-0.97)]. Using cox-regression analysis, clarithromycin compared to azithromycin in colchicine-treated patients was associated with a higher risk of longer duration on oxygen supply [HR = 1.77 (CI 1.04-2.99)]. Furthermore, we summarized 36 published colchicine studies, including 114,878 COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: COVID-19-hospitalized patients who were given colchicine had poorer outcomes in terms of the duration of supplemental oxygen use and the length of their hospital stay. Therefore, based on these findings, the use of colchicine is not recommended for COVID-19-hospitalized adults.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Survival Analysis of Remdesivir as a Treatment Option for Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients

Background: Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that has been approved as promising medicine worldwide for the fatal pandemic COVID-19 disease. There is a debate over its efficacy, with different studies taking into account a variety of factors. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the primary composite outcome of mortality rate, need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and escalation of care among Remdesivir (RDV) and non-Remdesivir (NoRDV) groups. Methods: Patients with moderate and severe PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection were observed retrospectively, before and after including RDV in the treatment protocol during the period from August 2020 to February 2021. Result: From the 509 hospitalized patients, 35% received Remdesivir, with 64% being severe patients. The median age in both groups was 59 years old, and there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding gender, baseline characteristics, and comorbidities. In contrast, the median hospital length of stay in the RDV group was lower (8 days) than the NoRDV (9 days), p = 0.004. The composite outcome was 17.7% in the RDV group and 22.2% in the NoRDV group, but the difference was statistically insignificant (p-value 0.289). Adjusted logistic regression demonstrated a non-significant lower association of the composite outcome with RDV use (OR 0.623, 95CI% 0.37-1.02), and a significant reduction occurred in patients <60 years old (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.17-0.83). However, survival analysis for mortality, MV, and transfer to a higher level revealed insignificant differences in the median time between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that RDV utilization had a non-significant effect on the risk of all three outcomes across different groups. Conclusion: Despite controlling all patient characteristics, treatment with RDV did not improve patient outcomes over other antivirals and standard care. There is an urgent need for further studies to investigate and evaluate new therapeutic approaches or combinations.

Mental health impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare workers in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a multi-country study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic are under incredible pressure, which puts them at risk of developing mental health problems. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among HCWs responding to COVID-19 and its associated factors. METHODS: A multi-country cross-sectional study was conducted during July-August 2020 among HCWs responding to COVID-19 in nine Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) countries. Data were collected using an online questionnaire administered using KoBo Toolbox. Mental problems were assessed using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: A total of 1448 HCWs from nine EMR countries participated in this study. About 51.2% were male and 52.7% aged ≤ 30 years. Of all HCWs, 57.5% had depression, 42.0% had stress, and 59.1% had anxiety. Considering the severity, 19.2%, 16.1%, 26.6% of patients had severe to extremely severe depression, stress, and anxiety, respectively. Depression, stress, anxiety, and distress scores were significantly associated with participants' residency, having children, preexisting psychiatric illness, and being isolated for COVID-19. Furthermore, females, those working in a teaching hospital, and specialists had significantly higher depression and stress scores. Married status, current smoking, diabetes mellitus, having a friend who died with COVID-19, and high COVID-19 worry scores were significantly associated with higher distress scores. CONCLUSIONS: Mental problems were prevalent among HCWs responding to COVID-19 in EMR. Therefore, special interventions to promote mental well-being among HCWs responding to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented.

Efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir or ravidasvir in patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial.

Only a few treatments are approved for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infections, with continuous debate about their clinical impact. Repurposing antiviral treatments might prove the fastest way to identify effective therapy. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclatasvir (DCV) or ravidasvir (RDV) added to standard care (SOC) for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection. Multicentre parallel randomized controlled open-label trial. One hundred and twenty eligible patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection were randomized to one of the study arms. Ten days of treatment with SOF plus DCV or RDV in addition to the standard of care compared to SOC. Follow up in 7 days. Sum of the counted symptoms at 7 and 10 days, mean change in oxygen saturation level, viral negativity, and rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Compared to SOC, the SOF-DCV group experienced a significantly lower sum of the counted symptoms (fever, headache, generalized aches, or respiratory distress) combined with no evidence of deterioration (ICU admission and mechanical ventilation) on Days 7 and 10 of treatment. Oxygen saturation also significantly improved among the SOF-DCV group compared to SOC starting from Day 4. The study also showed positive trends regarding the efficacy of SOF-DCV with a lower incidence of mortality. On the other hand, adding SOF-RDV to SOC did not show significant improvements in endpoints. The results support the efficacy and safety of SOF-DCV as an add-on to SOC for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 infections.

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.