Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Pulse International ; 22(21):1-14, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1505364
2.
Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences ; 15(6):1180-1184, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1323548

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 pandemic started from Wuhan Hubei Area, China in December 2019 and by April 25th, 2020 had infected almost 2,858,000 people in 185 countries, resulting in more than 200,000 deaths. Pakistan first reported two cases was on 26th February, 2020. Aim: To illustrate the impact of lock down during Covid-19 on adult Pakistani population. Method: A cross sectional study was carried out from 1st June to 30th July, 2020. An online questionnaire was administered via social media and e-mailing channels, randomly dispersed to adult Pakistani population from 1st June 2020 until 30th July 2020. A self-prepared systematic questionnaire was utilized to record the responses of member. This survey included questions to check the impact of lockdown on Pakistani population behavior, health effect, income, daily routines and jobs status, demographic data, before and after lockdown (sleeping time, use of social networking and exercise time). Data analysis was performed using SPSS 24. Results: This data exhibit lockdown impacts the day-by-day schedules and habits of individuals. Periods of rest, eating propensities and internet users have found critical contrasts. The larger part of members acknowledged the urge influenced by lockdown in their schedules and propensities. Conclusion: Covid-19 lockdown has deistically affected all responses of life and people faced social isolation.

3.
Rheumatology (United Kingdom) ; 60(SUPPL 1):i22, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1266146

ABSTRACT

Background/AimsIn 2017 an audit and survey of giant-cell arteritis (GCA) services wereconducted across northwest England (reported previously). This resurvey in 2020, following publication of revised BSR guidance, soughtto identify what changes were made in the intervening period, andprovided the opportunity to assess the impact of COVID-19.MethodsRheumatologists from 16 hospitals in northwest England were invitedto complete a survey in July 2020. Questions focused on serviceprovision for GCA, including pathways, diagnostics and steroidprescription.ResultsResponses were received from 14/16 sites in 2017, and 15/16 in 2020.9/15 (60%) sites reported that the 2017 audit and survey promptedchanges to GCA services, with two (13%) stating that it clarified theneed for implementation of existing plans. Two sites had a GCApathway in 2017. Four of the seven sites who committed to introducingone have now done so, bringing the total in 2020 to six. Eight of thenine remaining sites plan to implement one, six with a specific datewithin six months. Six (40%) have completed additional local audit/QIsince 2017. Temporal artery (TA) ultrasound (US) is now available in anadditional four sites, bringing the total to 6/15 (40%) in 2020. Two sitesreported improvement in both time between first rheumatologyconsultation and TA biopsy, and time to receive results (now <7days for each task in 6/15 (40%)). Six additional sites reportedproviding leaflets on steroids routinely, bringing the total in 2020 to 12/15 (80%), versus 6/14 (43%) previously. Four sites (27%) now have adatabase of GCA patients (one in 2017). There was no major change insites having a standard protocol for steroid taper (n = 8 2017;n = 72020, 89% and 100% of whom respectively use BSR guidance), nor inthe number of patients routinely provided steroid cards (six in 2017;five in 2020). The three sites who do not report giving leaflets onsteroids routinely, all had a pathway. 8/15 (53%) reported COVID-19having an adverse effect upon services, including: reduced access todiagnostics (n = 7: TA US, biopsy, and PET-CT);delayed appointments(n = 4);delayed referrals (n = 3). The tertiary referral centre reported animprovement because access to tocilizumab was facilitated by arelaxation of rules by NHS England.ConclusionThe original audit and survey of current GCA practice in 2017highlighted areas for improvement for each site, and regionally. Sitescontributing to this re-survey report that the exercise stimulated themto improve their current care. The 2017 exercise showed a strongcorrelation between reported practice (survey) and actual practice(audit), leading us to have confidence that responses provided a truepicture of care. This work demonstrates the power of audit to driveimprovement, at a regional level.

4.
Chest ; 158(4):A572, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-871843

ABSTRACT

SESSION TITLE: Medical Students/Residents' COVID-19 SESSION TYPE: Med Student/Res Case Report PRESENTED ON: October 18-21, 2020 INTRODUCTION: An outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus started in China in 2019. The disease was termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The clinical course involved respiratory symptoms including dyspnea, cough, fatigue and complications related to pneumonia (1). While predominantly involving the respiratory tract, it has been shown to effect multiple other organs including the cardiovascular system (2). We present a case of COVID-19 associated focal myocarditis mimicking acute coronary syndrome. CASE PRESENTATION: A 56-year-old man with presented to the emergency department with chest pain and dyspnea for one week. He also had for fatigue, non-productive cough and myalgia. He was hypoxic on presentation, requiring 3L of oxygen via nasal cannula. Physical exam was unremarkable. Chest x-ray was suggestive of increased interstitial prominence. A 12-lead-ECG was notable for normal sinus rhythm with ST elevations in the antero-lateral distribution (Figure 1). Initial Troponin I level was elevated at 8.6 ng/mL. His C-reative protein (CRP) was elevated at 160 mg/L and CBC showed mild absolute lymphopenia (lymphocyte count 0.6 bil/L). Rapid COVID-19 testing was obtained and the patient was treated appropriately for acute coronary syndrome with aspirin, unfractionated heparin and nitroglycerin infusion. He was taken to the catheterization lab for emergent coronary angiography which revealed no significant coronary disease (Figure 2). COVID-19 PCR returned positive and he was given supportive treatment in addition to azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine as part of COVID-19 regimen. He had marked improvement in symptoms over the next few days. DISCUSSION: Cardiac injury has been shown to occur in 8-12% of the patients affected by COVID-19 (3) and is associated with worse prognosis (1). The proposed mechanisms of injury include direct myocardial injury by the virus, systemic inflammation, demand ischemia and coronary thrombosis. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 has been limited to few case reports. Our case highlights an atypical presentation of COVID-19 associated myocarditis. The focal ST segment elevations noted on the ECG along with clinical symptoms were suggestive of a concomitant acute coronary syndrome despite other clinical symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. ECG only has about 47% sensitivity for myocarditis and is characterized usually by non-specific ST-T changes. Echocardiographic findings are variable and non-specific. Segmental wall motion abnormalities mimicking myocardial infarction can be observed as seen in our patient. Although the gold standard for diagnosis is myocardial biopsy, cardiac MR is being increasingly utilized as a non-invasive test. Due to high clinical suspicion and rapid improvement in symptoms, these tests were not pursued and a clinical diagnosis was made. CONCLUSIONS: We report an atypical presentation of myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Reference #1: Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497-506. Reference #2: Akhmerov A, Marban E. COVID-19 and the Heart. Circulation research. 2020;126(10):1443-55. Reference #3: Lippi G, Plebani M. Laboratory abnormalities in patients with COVID-2019 infection. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medici ne. 2020. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by NIKHIL AGRAWAL, source=Web Response no disclosure on file for Nawfal Al-khafaji;No relevant relationships by Syed Mustafa, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Amir Shahbaz, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Meer Zafar, source=Web Response

5.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 14(5): 953-961, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-621788

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: COVID-19 pandemic has affected various countries differently due to variance in demographics, income level, health infrastructure, government response, control and enforcement, and cultural traits of different populations. This study aims to identify significant factors behind the unequal distribution of identified cases and deaths in different countries. Our study's objective is comparative analysis and identification of relations between the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, population characteristics, and government response. METHODS: The top 18 countries worst hit by COVID-19 cases were identified. The data metrics, such as the number of cases, deaths, fatality rates, tests, average life expectancy, and population, were collected and consolidated. RESULTS: Countries with significant percentage of the older population are vulnerable to a high number of deaths due to COVID-19. Developed countries have higher per capita testing, whereas testing is less intensive in developing/underdeveloped countries. There is a consensus among health experts that COVID-19 has higher fatality rates for people above 60, however, with further age, this increases exponentially. Countries with higher life expectancy are also high-income countries, and the best course of action would be to provide specialized support to self-isolate for people of ages 75 and above. CONCLUSION: The behaviour of disease occurring at a large scale and interaction with different populations is studied to understand and differentiate the factors and measures that successfully inhibited the pandemic. The study benchmarks different countries based on their performance and efforts against the pandemic and provides some useful insights on the efficiency of their governance and potential to improve & ramp up their programs. The economic status and existing healthcare infrastructure as they are the key factors in determining the country's ability to contain and minimize the losses from this pandemic.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Developed Countries/statistics & numerical data , Developing Countries/statistics & numerical data , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors , Survival Rate
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL