Favipiravir for treating COVID‐19

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in patients with COVID‐19 as compared to standard of care without favipiravir.

Evaluation of Remdesivir to the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection in a tertiary-care hospital in southern India.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir was the only antiviral used in the treatment of COVID-19 in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, following the adaptive COVID-19 treatment trial-1 interim analysis report. However, its use in moderate to critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients continues to be controversial. METHODOLOGY: In a cohort of 1,531 moderate to critical COVID-19 patients, we retrospectively performed a nested case-control study where 515 patients on Remdesivir were compared to 411 patients with no Remdesivir. Cases and controls were matched for age, sex and severity. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, need for intensive care unit (ICU), progression to oxygen therapy, progression to non-invasive ventilation, progression to mechanical ventilation, and duration of ventilation. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 57.05 + 13.5 years. 75.92% were males. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 22.46% (n = 208). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality among cases and controls (20.78% vs. 24.57%, p = 0.17). Progression to non-invasive ventilation was lower in the Remdesivir group (13.6% vs 23.7%, p < 0.001), however progression to mechanical ventilation was higher in the Remdesivir group (11.3% vs 2.7%, p value < 0.001*). In a subgroup analysis of critically ill patients, the use of Remdesivir lowered mortality (OR 0.32 95% CI: 0.13 - 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir did not decrease the in-hospital mortality in moderate to severe COVID-19 but decreased progression to non-invasive ventilation. Its mortality benefit in critically ill patients needs further evaluation. Remdesivir may be useful if given early in the treatment of patients with moderate COVID-19.

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) and BBV152 (COVAXIN®): a non-inferiority phase 4, participant and observer-blinded, randomised study.

Background: Primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been shown to wane with time and provide lower protection from disease with new viral variants, prompting the WHO to recommend the administration of booster doses. We determined the safety and immunogenicity of homologous or heterologous boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) or BBV152 (COVAXIN®), the two vaccines used widely for primary immunization in India, in participants who had already received two primary doses of these vaccines. Methods: Participants primed with two doses each of COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® 12-36 weeks previously, were randomised to receive either COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® booster in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day 28 post-booster anti-spike IgG seropositivity and secondary outcomes were anti-spike IgG levels and assessment of safety and reactogenicity. The results of 90 days intention-to-treat analysis are presented. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (CTRI/2021/08/035648). Findings: In the COVISHIELD™ primed group with 200 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVAXIN® arm was 99% and non-inferior to the homologous COVISHIELD™ arm, which was also 99% (difference 0%; 95% CI: -2.8% to 2.7%). The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-spike antibodies following heterologous COVAXIN® boost on day 28 was 36,190.78 AU/mL (95% CI: 30,526.64-42,905.88) while the GMC following homologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 97,445.09 AU/mL (82,626.97-114,920.7). In the COVAXIN® primed group with 204 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVISHIELD™ arm was 100% and non inferior to the homologous COVAXIN® arm which was 96% (difference 4%, 95% CI: 0.2%-7.8%). The GMC following heterologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 241,681.6 AU/mL (95% CI: 201,380.2-290,048.3) compared to homologous COVAXIN® boost, which was 48,473.94 AU/mL (95% CI: 38,529.56-60,984.95). The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the anti-spike IgG between the heterologous and homologous boosted arms was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34-0.52) in the COVISHIELD™ primed group and 5.11 (95% CI: 3.83-6.81) in the COVAXIN® primed group. There were no related serious adverse events reported in any group. Interpretation: Homologous and heterologous boosting with COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® in COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® primed individuals are immunogenic and safe. A heterologous boost with COVISHIELD™ after COVAXIN® prime offers the best immune response among the four combinations evaluated. Funding: Azim Premji Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Epidemiological investigation of the COVID-19 outbreak in Vellore district in South India using Geographic Information Surveillance (GIS).

OBJECTIVES: Geographical Information Surveillance (GIS) is an advanced digital technology tool that maps location-based data and helps in epidemiological modeling. We applied GIS to analyze patterns of spread and hotspots of COVID-19 cases in the Vellore district in South India. METHODS: Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Vellore district and neighboring taluks from March 2020 to June 2021 were geocoded and spatial maps were generated. Time trends exploring urban-rural burden with an age-sex distribution of cases and other variables were correlated with outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 45,401 cases of COVID-19 were detected, with 20,730 cases during the first wave and 24,671 cases during the second wave. The overall incidence rates of COVID-19 were 462.8 and 588.6 per 100,000 population during the first and second waves, respectively. The spread pattern revealed epicenters in densely populated urban areas with radial spread sparing rural areas in the first wave. The case fatality rate was 1.89% and 1.6% during the first and second waves, which increased with advancing age. CONCLUSIONS: Modern surveillance systems like GIS can accurately predict the trends and spread patterns during future pandemics. In addition, real-time mapping can help design risk mitigation strategies, thereby preventing the spread to rural areas.

Effectiveness of a monitored home isolation program for COVID-19 infection during the second wave of the pandemic.

Background: The rapidity of spread of COVID-19 infection during the second wave of the pandemic placed tremendous stress on healthcare resources. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a monitored home isolation (HI) program. Methods: In this descriptive longitudinal study, symptomatic patients were screened in the HI clinic and eligible patients were followed up at home using tele-consultation, until recovery or hospitalization. HI failure was defined as need for hospitalization. Factors associated with HI failure were assessed using logistic regression analysis and expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: During April and May 2021, 1957 RT-PCR confirmed patients (984 male) with mean (SD) age 40 (13.5) years were enrolled; 93.3% (n = 1825) were successfully managed at home. Of the 132 patients (6.7%) who failed HI, 57 (43.2%) required oxygen therapy and 23 needed intensive care admissions. Overall mortality was 0.4% (7/1957). On adjusted analysis, factors associated with HI failure were age ≥60 years (OR 2.24; 95%CI 1.26-3.99), male gender (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.44-3.57), subjective reporting of breathing difficulty (OR 3.64; 95%CI 2.08-6.37), history of cough (OR 2.08; 95%CI 1.37-3.17), and higher heart rate (OR 1.04; 95%CI 1.02-1.05). Although patient status (non-healthcare workers), no prior vaccination and ≥2 comorbidities were associated with HI failure on unadjusted analysis, these were non-significant on adjusted analysis. Conclusion: Monitored HI program can be used successfully during a pandemic wave to judicially use scare hospital resources. Older male patients presenting with breathlessness or cough may warrant closer monitoring.

Protective effect conferred by prior infection and vaccination on COVID-19 in a healthcare worker cohort in South India.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of newer variants with the immune escape potential raises concerns about breakthroughs and re-infections resulting in future waves of infection. We examined the protective effect of prior COVID-19 disease and vaccination on infection rates among a cohort of healthcare workers (HCW) in South India during the second wave driven mainly by the delta variant. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Symptomatic HCWs were routinely tested by RT-PCR as per institutional policy. Vaccination was offered to all HCWs in late January, and the details were documented. We set up a non-concurrent cohort to document infection rates and estimated protective efficacy of prior infection and vaccination between 16th Apr to 31st May 2021, using a Cox proportional hazards model with time-varying covariates adjusting for daily incidence. Between June 2020 and May 2021, 2735 (23.9%) of 11,405 HCWs were infected, with 1412, including 32 re-infections, reported during the second wave. 6863 HCWs received two doses of vaccine and 1905 one dose. The protective efficacy of prior infection against symptomatic infection was 86.0% (95% CI 76.7%-91.6%). Vaccination combined with prior infection provided 91.1% (95% CI 84.1%-94.9%) efficacy. In the absence of prior infection, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection during the second wave was 31.8% (95% CI 23.5%- 39.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Prior infection provided substantial protection against symptomatic re-infection and severe disease during a delta variant driven second wave in a cohort of health care workers.

Single Dose of Ivermectin is not Useful in Patients with Hematological Disorders and COVID-19 Illness: A Phase II B Open Labelled Randomized Controlled Trial.

Repurposed drugs may reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological disorders who develop COVID-19 illness. 112 patients with predominantly hematological illnesses were randomized to receive standard of care, ivermectin 12 mg [Iv 12] or 24 mg [Iv24] for asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID 19 illness. Serial respiratory samples for rRT-PCR samples were sent on Day 3, 5 and 7. rRT-PCR negativity and ≥ 2 log10 reduction in viral loads on day 3, 5 and 7 were similar between the 3 treatment groups across all disease categories. Symptom progression occurred in 26 patients [21.6%] with no difference across 3 treatment groups. Twenty-two patients [18.3%] have expired while 98 [81.7%] survived. Survival rates were similar across treatment groups [controls-80.5%, Iv12-77.5%, Iv24-87.2% respectively]. Overall, poorer survival was seen with moderate illness compared to others [51.6% vs 92.1%; p = 0.000] and was the only significant risk factor identified on multivariate analysis. In this Phase II randomised trial, single dose of 12 or 24 mg of ivermectin did not reduce viral loads, prevent symptom progression, or reduce mortality in patients with predominantly haematological illnesses who develop mild to moderate COVID 19 illness.

Treatment of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With a Tabletop Noninvasive Ventilation Device in a Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit.

Objective: To study the outcomes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) administered through a tabletop device for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome in the respiratory intermediate care unit (RIMCU) at a tertiary care hospital in India. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively studied a cohort of hospitalized patients deteriorating despite low-flow oxygen support who received protocolized management with positive airway pressure using a tabletop NIV device in the RIMCU as a step-up rescue therapy from July 30, 2020 to November 14, 2020. Treatment was commenced on the continuous positive airway pressure mode up to a pressure of 10 cm of H2O, and if required, inspiratory pressures were added using the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Success was defined as weaning from NIV and stepping down to the ward, and failure was defined as escalation to the intensive care unit, the need for intubation, or death. Results: In total, 246 patients were treated in the RIMCU during the study period. Of these, 168 received respiratory support via a tabletop NIV device as a step-up rescue therapy. Their mean age was 54 years, and 83% were men. Diabetes mellitus (78%) and hypertension (44%) were the commonest comorbidities. Treatment was successful with tabletop NIV in 77% (129/168) of the patients; of them, 41% (69/168) received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure alone and 36% (60/168) received additional increased inspiratory pressure via the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Conclusion: Respiratory support using the tabletop NIV device was an effective and economical treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Further studies are required to assess the appropriate time of initiation for maximal benefits and judicious utilization of resources.

Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19 and Utility of Contact Tracing in Risk Assessment of Health-Care Worker Exposure during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, the frontline health-care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of acquiring infection either through household or workplace exposure. Objectives: To assess the risk of acquiring infection after COVID-19 exposure, we evaluated the effectiveness of a contact tracing assessment to identify the high-risk contacts. Materials and Methods: All HCW who tested COVID-19 positive in July 2020 were interviewed to do risk assessment based on their exposure, advised quarantine, and then followed up on day 14 for development of symptoms of COVID-19. Results: Contact tracing identified 2569 HCW contacts for 422 index positive cases, among which 1642 (63.9%) were contactable for follow-up. Among 1642 contacts, 12.97% developed COVID-19 symptoms within 14 days of the exposure. Household contacts comprising (142 out of 956, 14.9%) had a higher risk of becoming symptomatic than workplace contacts (71 out of 686, 10.3%) ([odds ratio 0.66 (confidence interval 0.49-0.89)]. Of these, 76.6% of the household exposure and 55.4% of significant workplace exposure were tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusions: Based on the risk assessment, we found that a HCW is likely to acquire infection at home rather than at the workplace, and hence, an appropriate quarantine policy can help decrease the transmission and mitigate staff shortage.

Impact of prior vaccination with CovishieldTM and Covaxin® on mortality among symptomatic COVID-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic in South India during April and May 2021: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for emergency use to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. This study evaluated the effect of prior vaccination with either Oxford Astra Zeneca's Covishield™ or Bharath Biotech's Covaxin® on mortality among symptomatic COVID-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic in India. METHODOLOGY: In this cohort study comprising of RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 patients presenting during April and May 2021, the effect of prior vaccination on mortality (primary outcome), need for hospitalization, oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were assessed and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the cohort (n = 4183) was 46.3 (15.5) years; 17.9% (748/4183) had received at least one dose of Covishield™ and 4.8% (201/4183) had received Covaxin®. Mortality was 0.2% (95% CI: 0.2% - 0.7%), 3.5% (1.9-5.2%), 6.2% (0.3-12%) and 12.9% (11.8-14.1%) among fully vaccinated (>2 weeks after two doses), partially vaccinated (>2 weeks after one dose or <2 weeks after two doses), indeterminate (<2 weeks after one dose) and unvaccinated patients respectively. The difference in mortality among unvaccinated vs. fully vaccinated was 12.7% (95% CI: 11.4-13.9%), unvaccinated vs. partially vaccinated was 9.4% (7.4-11.4%) and unvaccinated vs. indeterminate vaccinated was 6.8% (0.8-12.7%). On adjusted analysis, as compared to unvaccinated patients, at least one dose of vaccine reduced the need for hospitalization (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.35-0.47), oxygen (0.33; 0.27-0.40), NIV (0.23; 0.17-0.32), ICU admission (0.18; 0.12-0.27) and mortality (0.18; 0.11-0.29). CONCLUSION: Among symptomatic COVID-19 patients, prior vaccination with Covishield ™ or Covaxin® impacted the severity of illness and reduced mortality during a period of widespread delta variant circulation. Full vaccination conferred greater protection than partial vaccination.

Factors associated with mortality among moderate and severe patients with COVID-19 in India: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Large data on the clinical characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 in the Indian population are scarce. We analysed the factors associated with mortality in a cohort of moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19 enrolled in a randomised trial on convalescent plasma. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a Phase II, Open Label, Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma to Limit COVID-19 Associated Complications in Moderate Disease. SETTING: 39 public and private hospitals across India during the study period from 22 April to 14 July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 464 patients recruited, two were lost to follow-up, nine withdrew consent and two patients did not receive the intervention after randomisation. The cohort of 451 participants with known outcome at 28 days was analysed. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Factors associated with all-cause mortality at 28 days after enrolment. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age was 51±12.4 years; 76.7% were males. Admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 2.4±1.1. Non-invasive ventilation, invasive ventilation and vasopressor therapy were required in 98.9%, 8.4% and 4.0%, respectively. The 28-day mortality was 14.4%. Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was similar in survivors (4 days; IQR 3-7) and non-survivors (4 days; IQR 3-6). Patients with two or more comorbidities had 2.25 (95% CI 1.18 to 4.29, p=0.014) times risk of death. When compared with survivors, admission interleukin-6 levels were higher (p<0.001) in non-survivors and increased further on day 3. On multivariable Fine and Gray model, severity of illness (subdistribution HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.35, p<0.001), PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100 (3.47, 1.64-7.37, p=0.001), neutrophil lymphocyte ratio >10 (9.97, 3.65-27.13, p<0.001), D-dimer >1.0 mg/L (2.50, 1.14-5.48, p=0.022), ferritin ≥500 ng/mL (2.67, 1.44-4.96, p=0.002) and lactate dehydrogenase ≥450 IU/L (2.96, 1.60-5.45, p=0.001) were significantly associated with death. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19, severity of illness, underlying comorbidities and elevated levels of inflammatory markers were significantly associated with death. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2020/04/024775.

Adapting management strategies for sellar-suprasellar lesions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pragmatic approach from the frontline.

PURPOSE: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, endonasal surgeries for sellar-suprasellar lesions were discouraged due to the risk of transmission of the disease. We reviewed the changes in our management protocol for these lesions as our disease understanding and preparedness evolved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study including patients with sellar-suprasellar and clival lesions presenting to us between March and October 2020. Management protocols were divided into three phases based on the prevalence of the disease and the number of mandatory preoperative COVID-19 tests being conducted. The surgical approach used was analyzed in relation to the preferred approach during pre-COVID times, and surgical outcomes and complications were noted. RESULTS: A total of 31 cases were operated during this period. During Phase I (low prevalence; no preoperative COVID testing) endonasal surgeries were largely abandoned in favor of transcranial approaches. In Phase II (medium prevalence; one preoperative COVID test) we gradually resumed endonasal surgeries for 'emergent' and 'essential' cases, and subsequently in Phase III (high prevalence; two preoperative COVID tests), we had no hesitation in performing 'elective' endonasal surgeries with additional barriers for prevention of aerosol transmission. No patient developed COVID-19 infection postoperatively. Eight HCWs in our department acquired the disease during this period, none of whom were directly involved in the surgeries for the above cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: With a strict preoperative COVID testing protocol, adherence to proper drilling techniques and using additional barriers to prevent droplet and aerosol spread, endonasal surgeries for sellar-suprasellar lesions are safe during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Health-care preparedness and health-care worker protection in COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the nations and has created the institution of unprecedented measures globally toward its containment. Extraordinary measures may be needed for health-care preparedness, to reduce morbidity and mortality. Health-care workers who are at the frontlines in such pandemics are the most vulnerable. These issues are addressed in this article.