Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Future Microbiol ; 16: 1267-1276, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484979

ABSTRACT

Aims: This study aimed to investigate how the psychological health of health care professionals (HCP) on COVID duty was different from those who were not directly in contact. Methodology: Of 473 (76%) randomly selected respondents (doctors and nurses) to a WhatsApp request message, 450 subjects' data were finally analyzed. Result: The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression among HCP was 33.8, 38.9 and 43.6%, respectively. Compared with nonexposed professionals, COVID-19-exposed professionals had roughly double the score of these morbidities (t = 6.3, p < 0.001; t = 6.9, p < 0.001; t = 6.0, p < 0.001). Most worry (71.11%) was about the health of their family, followed by themselves (35.55%). Conclusion: The level of exposure, feelings of uncertainty and fear of infection emerged in our study as possible risk factors for psychological morbidities among HCP.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Online Systems , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Indian J Med Microbiol ; 39(2): 159-170, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1157420

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after six months of the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been one of the most widely tested drugs for SARS CoV2 on account of its antiviral properties. However the results so far have been far from categorical. The meta-analyses conducted till date are also lacking in precision and appropriateness. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of HCQ in SARS CoV2 by overcoming the limitations of earlier meta-analysis. METHODS: A total of 5 prominent medical databases were searched and fourteen studies (n = 12455) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. The data on survival, alleviation of symptoms, conversion of RT PCR positivity to negativity, use and efficacy in presence of co-morbidities (Hypertension, diabetes and heart disease) and cardiac and gastrointestinal side effects were extracted. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate the pooled estimates. Fixed-effects model results were chosen since I2 was <25%.Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS: The pooled estimates showed that HCQ treatment did not significantly affect survival at 14 and 28 days in COVID-19 patients with respect to the control population (RR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.983-1.022), alleviation of symptoms at day 10 (RR: 1.044, 95% CI: 0.911 1.196), success in presence of co-morbidities (RR: 1.058, 95% CI: 1.035-1.082) and conversion from RT PCR positive to RT PCR negative on day 6 (RR:1.123, 95% CI: 1.041 1.212). There was higher risk for cardiac side effects (RR: 2.012, 95% CI: 1.428 2.833) and gastrointestinal side effects (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 0.730 2.380) in HCQ recipients. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence on the safety and efficacy of HCQ either alone or in combination with other drugs in SARS CoV2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Comorbidity , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects
3.
Ther Adv Drug Saf ; 11: 2042098620957141, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781399
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...