Cross-cultural prevalence of sleep quality and psychological distress in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality sleep and emotional disturbances are expected in times of crisis. COVID-19 has severely impacted healthcare worldwide and with that comes the concern about its effects on healthcare workers. The purpose of the present study was to assess sleep quality and psychological distress in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The present work is a multi-centric cross-sectional study targeting healthcare workers from India, Pakistan, and Nepal. It used an online version of the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index and the General Health Questionnaire, and data were analyzed using SPSS V.24. RESULTS: A total of 1790 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the 1790 participants, 57% reported poor sleep quality, and 10% reported a high level of psychological distress. A cross-cultural comparison found some differences between the different groups of participants. The details of the differences were further explored in the article. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights that a significant proportion of healthcare workers are affected by poor sleep quality and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also emphasizes the imperative to provide them with psychosocial support to avoid potential short- and long-term psychological consequences of these troubling times.

New-onset diabetes in COVID-19 and clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 is known to be bidirectional. AIM: To analyze the rate of new-onset diabetes in COVID-19 patients and compare the clinical outcomes of new-onset diabetes, pre-existing diabetes, hyperglycemic, and non-diabetes among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We used the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for the present meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for all peer-reviewed articles published until November 6, 2020. Articles were screened using Covidence and data extracted. Further analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis. Among the 128 studies detected after thorough database searching, seven were included in the quantitative analysis. The proportion was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed using I 2. RESULTS: Analysis showed that 19.70% (CI: 10.93-32.91) of COVID-19 patients had associated DM, and 25.23% (CI: 19.07-32.58) had associated hyperglycemia. The overall mortality rate was 15.36% (CI: 12.57-18.68) of all COVID-19 cases, irrespective of their DM status. The mortality rate was 9.26% among non-diabetic patients, 10.59% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 16.03% among known DM patients, and 24.96% among COVID-19 associated DM patients. The overall occurrence of adverse events was 20.52% (CI: 14.21-28.70) among COVID-19 patients in the included studies, 15.29% among non-diabetic patients, 20.41% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 20.69% among known DM patients, and 45.85% among new-onset DM. Meta-regression showed an increasing rate of mortality among new hyperglycemic patients, known diabetics, and new-onset DM patients in comparison to those without diabetes. CONCLUSION: A significantly higher rate of new onset DM and hyperglycemia was observed. Higher mortality rates and adverse events were seen in patients with new-onset DM and hyperglycemia than in the non-diabetic population.

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19. MAIN METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test. KEY FINDINGS: Comparing 10-day remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduced 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41-0.91), need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.97), and severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). Clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06-2.39), day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19-1.84), and day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15-1.73) were better among remdesivir group. Earlier clinical improvement (MD -2.51, CI -4.16 to -0.85); and clinical recovery (MD -4.69, CI -5.11 to -4.28) were seen among the remdesivir group. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed a higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50-2.97), but there were significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the 5-day course. SIGNIFICANCE: Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among the remdesivir group. 10-day remdesivir showed more adverse outcome than 5-day course with no significant benefits.