Primary odontogenic onset invasive mucormycosis-an under recognized clinical entity.

OBJECTIVES: The primary source of facial mucormycosis is through inhalation of fungal sporangiospores, resulting in invasive disease in paranasal sinuses. However, dental onset mucormycosis has not been well documented in literature. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with odontogenic onset mucormycosis. METHODS: From a large cohort of mucormycosis involving the face between July 2020 and October 2021, we selected patients who had dental symptoms at onset and predominant alveolar involvement with little to no paranasal sinus disease as shown by baseline imaging. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of mucormycosis through histopathology, with or without the growth of Mucorales in fungal culture. RESULTS: Out of 256 patients with invasive mucormycosis of the face, 8.2% (21 patients) had odontogenic onset. Uncontrolled diabetes was a common risk factor, affecting 71.4% (15/21) of the patients, while recent COVID-19 illness was noted in 80.9% (17/21) of patients. The median duration of symptoms at presentation was 37 days (IQR, 14-80 days). The most common symptoms were dental pain with loose teeth (100%), facial swelling (66.7% [14/21]), pus discharge (28.6% [6/21]), and gingival and palatal abscess (28.6% [6/21]). Extensive osteomyelitis was found in 61.9% (13/21) of the patients, and 28.6% (6/21) had oroantral fistulas. The mortality rate was low, at 9.5% (2/21), with only 9.5% (2/21) of the patients having brain extension and 14.2% (3/21) in the orbit. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that odontogenic onset invasive mucormycosis may be a separate clinical entity with its own distinct clinical features and prognosis.

Retrospective study of comparison of clinical severity and outcome of hospitalised COVID-19 patients during the first and second waves of the pandemic in India.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical severity and outcome of hospitalised patients during the two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. SETTING: A tertiary care referral hospital in South India. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic SARS CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR positive patients presenting to the emergency department during the two waves were recruited. The first wave spanned between April and December 2020 and the second wave between April and May 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was mortality. Secondary outcomes included illness severity at presentation, need for oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and hospital or intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 4971 hospitalised patients in the first wave was similar to the 2293 patients in the second wave (52.5±15.4 vs 52.1±15.1 years, p=0.37). When compared with the first wave, during the second wave, a higher proportion of patients presented with critical illness (11% vs 1.1%, p<0.001) and needed supplemental oxygen therapy (n=2092: 42.1% vs n=1459: 63.6%; p<0.001), NIV (n=643; 12.9% vs n=709; 30.9%; p<0.001) or inotropes/vasoactive drugs (n=108; 2.2% vs n=77: 3.4%; p=0.004). Mortality was higher during the second wave (19.2% vs 9.3%; p<0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, age >60 years (risk ratio, RR 2.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 3.70), D-dimer >1000 ng/mL (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55), treatment with supplemental oxygen (RR 14.6; 95% CI 8.98 to 23.6) and presentation during the second wave (RR 1.40; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.62) were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India appeared to be associated with more severe presentation and higher mortality when compared with the first wave. Increasing age, elevated D-dimer levels and treatment with supplemental oxygen were independent predictors of mortality.

Risk factors associated with the mucormycosis epidemic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study was performed to assess the risk factors driving the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated mucormycosis (COVID-Mucor) in India that has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during the second wave. Risk factors were analysed among 164 participants: 132 COVID-Mucor (cases) and 32 non-COVID-Mucor (controls). Data from a prospective cohort study of mucormycosis over a period of 1 year were used. Diabetes mellitus remained a significant risk factor in both groups (97%), while uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) 4.6; P = 0.026) and newly detected diabetes (OR 3.3; P = 0.018) were more common among the cases. Most patients with COVID-Mucor had mild COVID-19. Steroid use, often unwarranted, was highly associated with COVID-Mucor after adjusting for other risk factors (OR 28.4; P = 0.001). Serum ferritin was significantly higher (P = 0.041), while C-reactive protein was not, suggesting that alterations in iron metabolism may predispose to COVID-Mucor. Oxygen was used only in a small minority of patients with COVID-Mucor. The in-hospital mortality in both groups was low. In conclusion, the Indian COVID-Mucor epidemic has likely been driven by a convergence of interlinked risk factors: uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, unwarranted steroid use, and perhaps COVID-19 itself. Appropriate steroid use in patients with severe COVID-19 and screening and optimal control of hyperglycaemia can prevent COVID-Mucor.

Host Biomarkers Reflect Prognosis in Patients Presenting With Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Efficient resource allocation is essential for effective pandemic response. We measured host biomarkers in 420 patients presenting with moderate coronavirus disease 2019 and found that different biomarkers predict distinct clinical outcomes. Interleukin (IL)-1ra, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-8 exhibit dose-response relationships with subsequent disease progression and could potentially be useful for multiple use-cases.

A prospective evaluation of postoperative fever in adult neurosurgery patients in the COVID-19 era.

Postoperative fever is mostly transient and inconsequential but may portend a serious postoperative infection requiring a thorough evaluation, especially during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to determine the incidence, causes and outcomes of postoperative fever in neurosurgical patients, as well as to evaluate a protocol for management of postoperative fever. We conducted a prospective study over 12 months, recruiting 425 adult patients operated for non-traumatic neurosurgical indications. We followed a standard protocol for the evaluation and management of postoperative fever collecting data regarding operative details, daily maximal temperature, clinical features, as well as use of surgical drains, urinary catheters, and other invasive adjuncts. Elevated body temperature of > 99.9°F or 37.7 °C for over 48 h or associated with clinical deterioration or localising features was considered as "fever" and was evaluated according to our protocol. We classified elevated temperature not meeting this criterion as a transient elevation in temperature (TET). Sixty-five patients (13.5%) had postoperative fever. Transient elevation of temperature, occurring in 40 patients (8.8%) was most common in the first 48 h after surgery. The most common causes of fever were urinary tract infections (13.7%), followed by aseptic meningitis (10.8%), wound infections and pneumonia. Various aetiologies of fever followed distinct patterns, with COVID-19 and meningitis causing high-grade, prolonged fever. Multivariate analysis revealed cranial surgery, prolonged duration of surgery, urinary catheters and wound drains retained beyond POD 3 to predict fever. Postoperative fever was associated with significantly longer duration of hospital admission. COVID-19 had a high mortality rate in the early postoperative period.

Facilitating Safe Discharge Through Predicting Disease Progression in Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study to Develop and Validate a Clinical Prediction Model in Resource-Limited Settings.

BACKGROUND: In locations where few people have received coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, health systems remain vulnerable to surges in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Tools to identify patients suitable for community-based management are urgently needed. METHODS: We prospectively recruited adults presenting to 2 hospitals in India with moderate symptoms of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 to develop and validate a clinical prediction model to rule out progression to supplemental oxygen requirement. The primary outcome was defined as any of the following: SpO2 < 94%; respiratory rate > 30 BPM; SpO2/FiO2 < 400; or death. We specified a priori that each model would contain three clinical parameters (age, sex, and SpO2) and 1 of 7 shortlisted biochemical biomarkers measurable using commercially available rapid tests (C-reactive protein [CRP], D-dimer, interleukin 6 [IL-6], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], procalcitonin [PCT], soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cell-1 [sTREM-1], or soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor [suPAR]), to ensure the models would be suitable for resource-limited settings. We evaluated discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the models in a held-out temporal external validation cohort. RESULTS: In total, 426 participants were recruited, of whom 89 (21.0%) met the primary outcome; 257 participants comprised the development cohort, and 166 comprised the validation cohort. The 3 models containing NLR, suPAR, or IL-6 demonstrated promising discrimination (c-statistics: 0.72-0.74) and calibration (calibration slopes: 1.01-1.05) in the validation cohort and provided greater utility than a model containing the clinical parameters alone. CONCLUSIONS: We present 3 clinical prediction models that could help clinicians identify patients with moderate COVID-19 suitable for community-based management. The models are readily implementable and of particular relevance for locations with limited resources.

The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The role and performance of various serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of seven commercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by testing COVID-19 cases and controls. METHODS: Adult patients with fever for > 5 days, admitted to a tertiary-care teaching hospital in South India, were enrolled prospectively between June and December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed patients were classified as cases, and patients with febrile illness with laboratory-confirmed alternative diagnosis and healthy participants were controls. All participants were tested with SCoV-2 Detect™ IgM ELISA kit and SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA kit (InBios International, Seattle, USA) (Inbios), SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Tarrytown, USA) (Siemens), Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (Roche), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA) (Abbott), and Liaison® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorinS.p.A., Saluggia, Italy) (Liaison). The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracies were compared. RESULTS: There were 303 participants: 153 cases and 150 controls. ELISA detecting anti-S protein antibody was more sensitive (88.9% for IgG and 86.3% for IgM) than the CLIAs (82.4% for total antibodies and 76.5-85.6% for IgG). Among CLIAs, Roche IgG was most sensitive (85.6%) followed by Abbott (83%) and Liaison (83%). Abbot had the best PPV (88.8%) and was more specific (89.3%) than Liaison (82%) and Roche (82%). Siemens IgG was less sensitive (76.5%) than Siemens Total (82.4%). The specificity of all the serological assays was modest (75-90%). Antibody test positivity increased with the duration of illness reaching 90% after 10 days of illness. When cases were compared against pre-pandemic controls, the IgG gave excellent specificity (98-100%). For seroprevalence studies, InBios IgG had the best accuracy (90.8%) with 88.9% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity. CONCLUSION: The serological assays are important adjuncts for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with persistent symptoms, especially in the second week of illness. The value of serological diagnostic tests is limited in the first week of illness and they provide additional value in seroprevalence studies. The diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA and CLIA platforms were comparable.

Definition, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19-associated pulmonary mucormycosis: Delphi consensus statement from the Fungal Infection Study Forum and Academy of Pulmonary Sciences, India.

COVID-19-associated pulmonary mucormycosis (CAPM) remains an underdiagnosed entity. Using a modified Delphi method, we have formulated a consensus statement for the diagnosis and management of CAPM. We selected 26 experts from various disciplines who are involved in managing CAPM. Three rounds of the Delphi process were held to reach consensus (≥70% agreement or disagreement) or dissensus. A consensus was achieved for 84 of the 89 statements. Pulmonary mucormycosis occurring within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis was labelled CAPM and classified further as proven, probable, and possible. We recommend flexible bronchoscopy to enable early diagnosis. The experts proposed definitions to categorise dual infections with aspergillosis and mucormycosis in patients with COVID-19. We recommend liposomal amphotericin B (5 mg/kg per day) and early surgery as central to the management of mucormycosis in patients with COVID-19. We recommend response assessment at 4-6 weeks using clinical and imaging parameters. Posaconazole or isavuconazole was recommended as maintenance therapy following initial response, but no consensus was reached for the duration of treatment. In patients with stable or progressive disease, the experts recommended salvage therapy with posaconazole or isavuconazole. CAPM is a rare but under-reported complication of COVID-19. Although we have proposed recommendations for defining, diagnosing, and managing CAPM, more extensive research is required.

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.

Community seroprevalence and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in different subpopulations in Vellore, India, and their implications for future prevention.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to inform public health policy decisions through the assessment of IgG antibody seroprevalence in the population and the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies among different subpopulations at the end of the first and second waves of the pandemic was estimated. Various risk factors associated with seropositivity, including sociodemography, IgG antibodies against endemic human coronavirus, and vaccination status, were also assessed. RESULTS: For all 2433 consenting participants, the overall estimated seroprevalences at the end of first and second waves were 28.5% (95% CI 22.3-33.7%) and 71.5% (95% CI 62.8-80.5%), respectively. The accrual of IgG positivity was heterogeneous, with the highest seroprevalences found in urban slum populations (75.1%). Vaccine uptake varied among the subpopulations, with low rates (< 10%) among rural and urban slum residents. The majority of seropositive individuals (75%) were asymptomatic. Residence in urban slums (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.57-2.6; p < 0.001), middle socioeconomic status (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17-2.67; p = 0.007), presence of diabetes (OR 1.721, 95% CI 1.148-2.581; p = 0.009), and hypertension (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.16-2.64; p = 0.008) were associated with seropositivity in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: Although considerable population immunity has been reached, with more than two-thirds seropositive, improved vaccination strategies among unreached subpopulations and high-risk individuals are suggested for better preparedness in future.

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.

Plasma Von Willebrand Factor Levels Predict Survival in COVID-19 Patients Across the Entire Spectrum of Disease Severity.

BACKGROUND: Characterization of reticulo-endothelial activation in COVID-19 may guide treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess reticulo-endothelial activation and its correlation with disease severity and death in patients across the entire spectrum of COVID-19 severity. METHODS: Consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients were studied, with similar number of patients in each disease severity category. Baseline serum ferritin, sCD163 (macrophage activation markers) and plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen (endothelial activation marker) levels were studied. Clinical parameters and plasma D-dimer levels were also studied. The study parameters were correlated with COVID-19 severity and survival. RESULTS: The 143 patients (104 males [80%], age 54 [42 - 65] years, median [inter-quartile range]) presented 4 (3-7) days after symptom onset. Thirty-four patients had mild disease, 36 had moderate disease, 36 had severe disease and 37 had critical disease at baseline. With increasing COVID-19 severity, ferritin, sCD163, VWF and D-dimer levels significantly increased at baseline, however, 139 patients had normal sCD163 levels. Of the reticulo-endothelial markers, VWF level independently correlated with COVID-19 severity and with survival. VWF level > 332.6 units/dl correlated with COVID-19 severity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.77 [95% confidence interval (C.I): 1.1 - 6.99], p value: 0.031) and in-hospital death (OR [95% CI]: 29.28 [5.2 - 165], p value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reticulo-endothelial activation markers increased incrementally with worsening COVID-19 severity. Baseline endothelial activation marker (VWF), and not macrophage activation markers, independently correlated with COVID-19 severity and death.

Clinical management of COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with its early origin from Wuhan city in China has evolved into a global pandemic. Maximal precautionary measures and resources have been put forward by most nations in war footing to mitigate transmission and decrease fatality rates. This article was aimed to review the evidence on clinical management and to deal with the identification of high-risk groups, warning signs, appropriate investigations, proper sample collection for confirmation, general and specific treatment measures, strategies as well as infection control in the healthcare settings. Advanced age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer have been found to be the risk factors for severe disease. Fever lasting for >five days with tachypnoea, tachycardia or hypotension are indications for urgent attention and hospitalization in a patient with suspected COVID-19. At present, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from the upper respiratory tract samples is the diagnostic test of choice. While many drugs have shown in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there are insufficient clinical data to promote or dissuade their usage. Among the currently available drugs, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir may be considered for patients with severe COVID-19 infection, awaiting further clinical trials. Stringent droplet and contact precautions will protect healthcare workers against most clinical exposures to COVID-19.