ABSTRACT
Background: SARS-CoV-2 has a high mutation rate, resulting in the emergence of multiple variants in a shorter time frame, starting with Wuhan strain during first wave, then Delta during second wave and Omicron during third wave. World faced distressing spread of novel corona virus. The reason for this study was to look at the third flood of SARS-CoV-2, clinical highlights and risk factors in northern India. Method(s): This study involved 1,43,983 individuals for testing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during January 2022 by RT-PCR. The epidemiological record was collected as per the guidelines of ICMR from the patient forms. Result(s): A total of 12.24% individuals were found positive with mean age of 29+/-10 years. Large portion of positive population (63.87%) was asymptomatic. Among the positive population, higher positivity rate was observed in males (57.51%) with age band of 21-40 years (51.17%). Significant association (p value = <0.00001) was found between positivity rate with age, gender and status (symptomatic/ asymptomatic). SARS-CoV-2 was shown to be more prevalent in Patiala, (49.66%) district followed by Ludhiana (24.24%), Sangrur (10.06%), Mansa (7.06%), Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (6.90%) and Malerkotla (2.08%) during second and third week of January 2022. Hypertension and bronchial asthma were the most well-known comorbidities found in the current study. Conclusion(s): In totality, current study showed positivity rate of 12.24% from large population size for SARS CoV-2 from period of 1st January 2022 to 31 January 2022. Current findings include younger age group (21-40 years), high percent of asymptomatic individuals, less disease severity and a little need of hospitalization.Copyright © 2023, Institute of Medico-legal Publication. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Studies have reported similar clinical, biochemical, and radiological features between real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive and RT-PCR-negative patients. Therefore, the present study aims to assess differences in RT-PCR-positive versus RT-PCR-negative patients' characteristics. Methods We prospectively included 70 consecutive patients with typical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like clinical features who were either RT-PCR-positive or negative, requiring admission to the intensive care unit. The patients were classified into positive and negative RT-PCR groups and evaluated for clinical features, comorbidities, laboratory findings, and radiologic features. Results Fifty-seven point one percent (57.1%; 40/70) were RT-PCR positive, and 42.9% (30/70) were RT-PCR negative patients. The respiratory rate was higher among negative patients (P = 0.02), whereas the mean duration of fever was longer (3.34 vs 2.5; P = 0.022) among positive patients. At presentation, RT-PCR-negative patients had lower saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) (near significant P = 0.058). Evaluation of co-morbidities revealed no differences. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (4.57 vs 6.52; P = 0.048), C-reactive protein (CRP) (9.97 vs 22.7; P = 0.007), and serum ferritin (158 vs 248.52; P = 0.010) were higher in patients who tested negative for RT-PCR. Thrombocytopenia (2.42 vs 1.76; P = 0.009), D-dimer levels (408.91 vs 123.06; P = 0.03), and interleukin (IL-6) levels (219.3 vs 80.81; P = 0.04) were significantly elevated among RT-PCR positive patients. The percentage of lung involvement in negative cases was 42.29+/-22.78 vs 36.21+/-21.8 in positive cases (P=0.23). The CT severity score was similar in both cohorts. Conclusion Both RT-PCR-positive and negative patients have similar clinical, biochemical, and radiological features. Considering that we are amidst a pandemic, it is advisable to have a similar approach irrespective of the RT-PCR report and triage and isolate accordingly. We recommend an RT-PCR-negative intensive care unit (ICU) ward and that the treating physician take a call on the management with a holistic approach driven clinically by the laboratory findings and helped by radiological findings. Stressing only on the RT-PCR report for management can be counterproductive.
ABSTRACT
Background We have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates. In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect. Methods This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program. Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments. The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalization and mortality rates. Results Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001). Among COVID-19 participants, regularusers were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users. After PSM, the matched analysis contained 283 subjects in each group of non-users and regular users, between regular users and irregular users, and 1,542 subjects between non-users and irregular users. The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001). Conclusion Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Introduction A major barrier for successful therapeutic approaches for COVID-19 is the inability to diagnose COVID-19 during the viral replication stage, when drugs with potential antiviral activity could demonstrate efficacy and preclude progression to more severe stages. Reasons that hamper an earlier diagnosis of COVID-19 include the unspecific and mild symptoms during the first stage, the delay in the diagnosis and specific management caused by the requirement of a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 for the diagnosis of COVID-19, and the insufficient sensitivity of the RT-PCR-SARS-CoV-2, converse to what is recommended for a screening test during an outbreak. More sensitive and earlier diagnostic tools for COVID-19 should be unraveled as a key strategy for a breakthrough change in the disease course and response to specific therapies, particularly those that target the blockage of viral shedding. We aimed to create an accurate, sensitive, easy-to-perform, and intuitive clinical scoring for the diagnosis of COVID-19 without the need for an RT-PCR-SARS-CoV-2 (termed The AndroCoV Clinical Scoring for COVID-19 Diagnosis), resulting from a 1,757 population cohort, to eventually encourage the management of patients with a high pre-clinical likelihood of presenting COVID-19, independent of an RT-PCR-SARS-COV-2 test, to avoid delays and loss of appropriate timing for potential therapies. Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of clinical data prospectively collected of the Pre-AndroCoV and AndroCov Trials, which resulted in scorings for the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 based on the likelihood of presenting with actual COVID-19 according to the number of symptoms, presence of anosmia, and known positive household contact. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and accuracy were calculated for subjects screened in two different periods and both periods together, for females, males, and both, in a total of nine different scenarios, according to combinations of one, two, or three or more symptoms or the presence of anosmia in subjects without known positive household contacts, and no symptoms, one, two, or three or more symptoms, or presence of anosmia or ageusia in subjects with known positive household contacts. Scorings that yielded the highest pre-test probability, sensitivity, and accuracy were selected. Results Of the 1,757 patients screened, 1,284 were diagnosed with COVID-19. The scoring that required: (1) two or more symptoms, or anosmia or ageusia alone, for subjects without known contact; or (2) one or more symptoms, including anosmia or ageusia alone, when with known positive contacts presented the highest accuracy (80.4%) among all combinations attempted, and higher sensitivity (85.7%) than RT-PCR-SARS-CoV-2 commercially available kit tests. Conclusion The AndroCoV clinical scoring for COVID-19 diagnosis was demonstrated to be a feasible, easy, costless, and sensitive diagnostic tool for the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Because the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 avoids delays in specific treatments, particularly for high-risk populations, prevents false-negative diagnosis, and reduces diagnostic costs, this diagnostic tool should be considered as an option for COVID-19 diagnosis, at least while SARS-CoV-2 is the prevailing circulating virus and vaccination rate is below the required for herd immunity.