Oxygen Saturation in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients and Its Relation to Colchicine Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study with an Updated Systematic Review.

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a cytokine storm-blocking agent for COVID-19 due to its efficacy as an anti-inflammatory drug. The findings of the studies were contentious on the role of colchicine in preventing deterioration in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19-hospitalized patients. Design: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out at three major isolation hospitals in Alexandria (Egypt), covering multiple centers. In addition, a systematic review was conducted by searching six different databases for published studies on the utilization of colchicine in patients with COVID-19 until March 2023. The primary outcome measure was to determine whether colchicine could decrease the number of days that the patient needed supplemental oxygen. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate whether colchicine could reduce the number of hospitalization days and mortality rate in these patients. Results: Out of 515 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 411 were included in the survival analysis. After adjusting for the patients' characteristics, patients not receiving colchicine had a shorter length of stay (median: 7.0 vs. 6.0 days) and fewer days of supplemental oxygen treatment (median: 6.0 vs. 5.0 days), p < 0.05, but there was no significant difference in mortality rate. In a subgroup analysis based on oxygen equipment at admission, patients admitted on nasal cannula/face masks who did not receive colchicine had a shorter duration on oxygen supply than those who did [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.76 (CI 0.59-0.97)]. Using cox-regression analysis, clarithromycin compared to azithromycin in colchicine-treated patients was associated with a higher risk of longer duration on oxygen supply [HR = 1.77 (CI 1.04-2.99)]. Furthermore, we summarized 36 published colchicine studies, including 114,878 COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: COVID-19-hospitalized patients who were given colchicine had poorer outcomes in terms of the duration of supplemental oxygen use and the length of their hospital stay. Therefore, based on these findings, the use of colchicine is not recommended for COVID-19-hospitalized adults.

Effectiveness and Safety of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) among Healthcare Workers: A Seven-Month Follow-Up Study at Fifteen Central Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: During a pandemic, healthcare workers are at high risk of contracting COVID-19. To protect these important individuals, it is highly recommended that they receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Our study focused on evaluating the safety and efficacy of Egypt's first approved vaccine, the Sinopharm vaccine (BBIBP-CorV), and comparing these findings with other vaccines. METHODS: An observational study was conducted in fifteen triage and isolation hospitals, from the 1st of March until the end of September 2021. The study included fully vaccinated and unvaccinated participants, and we measured vaccine effectiveness (using 1-aHR), the incidence rate of severely to critically ill hospitalized cases, COVID-19-related work absenteeism, and the safety of the vaccine as outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1364 healthcare workers who were interviewed, 1228 agreed to participate. After taking the hazard ratio into account, the vaccine effectiveness was found to be 67% (95% CI, 80-43%) for symptomatic PCR-confirmed cases. The incidence rate ratio for hospitalization was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.15-1.31) in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group, and there was a significant reduction in absenteeism among the vaccinated group (p < 0.007). Most adverse events were mild and well tolerated. Vaccinated pregnant and lactating mothers did not experience any sentinel adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the BBIBP-CorV vaccine was effective in protecting healthcare workers from COVID-19.

A Meta-Analysis on the Safety and Immunogenicity of Covid-19 Vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: The presented meta-analysis (MA) aims at identifying the vaccine safety and immunogenicity in published trials about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: All relevant publications were systematically searched and collected from different databases (Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE central/PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), COVID Trial, COVID Inato, Web of Science, ProQuest Thesis, ProQuest Coronavirus Database, SAGE Thesis, Google Scholar, Research Square, and Medxriv) up to January 10, 2021. The pooled vaccine safety and immunogenicity following vaccination in phase 1 and 2 vaccine clinical trials, as well as their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: The predefined inclusion criteria were met in 22 out of 8592 articles. The proportion of anti-severe acute respiratory distress coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody responses after 7 days among 72 vaccinated persons included in 1 study was 81% (95% CI: 70-89), after 14 days among 888 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 80% (95% CI: 58-92), after 28 days among 1589 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 63% (95% CI: 59-67), after 42 days among 478 vaccinated persons included in 5 studies was 93% (95% CI: 80-98), and after 56 days among 432 vaccinated persons included in 2 studies was 93% (95% CI: 83-97). Meta regression explains more than 80% of this heterogeneity, where the main predictors were; the inactivated vaccine type (ß = 2.027, P = 0.0007), measurement of antibodies at week 1 (ß = -4.327, P < 0.0001) and at week 3 of the first dose (ß = -2.02, P = 0.0025). Furthermore, the pooled proportion adverse effects 7 days after vaccination was 0.01 (0.08-0.14) for fever, headache 0.23 (0.19-0.27), fatigue 0.10 (0.07-0.13), and 0.18 (0.14-0.23) for muscle pain. CONCLUSION: Immunogenicity following vaccination ranged from 63% to 93% depending on the time at which the antibody levels were measured.

Clinical Outcomes and Survival Analysis of Remdesivir as a Treatment Option for Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients

Background: Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that has been approved as promising medicine worldwide for the fatal pandemic COVID-19 disease. There is a debate over its efficacy, with different studies taking into account a variety of factors. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the primary composite outcome of mortality rate, need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and escalation of care among Remdesivir (RDV) and non-Remdesivir (NoRDV) groups. Methods: Patients with moderate and severe PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection were observed retrospectively, before and after including RDV in the treatment protocol during the period from August 2020 to February 2021. Result: From the 509 hospitalized patients, 35% received Remdesivir, with 64% being severe patients. The median age in both groups was 59 years old, and there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding gender, baseline characteristics, and comorbidities. In contrast, the median hospital length of stay in the RDV group was lower (8 days) than the NoRDV (9 days), p = 0.004. The composite outcome was 17.7% in the RDV group and 22.2% in the NoRDV group, but the difference was statistically insignificant (p-value 0.289). Adjusted logistic regression demonstrated a non-significant lower association of the composite outcome with RDV use (OR 0.623, 95CI% 0.37-1.02), and a significant reduction occurred in patients <60 years old (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.17-0.83). However, survival analysis for mortality, MV, and transfer to a higher level revealed insignificant differences in the median time between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that RDV utilization had a non-significant effect on the risk of all three outcomes across different groups. Conclusion: Despite controlling all patient characteristics, treatment with RDV did not improve patient outcomes over other antivirals and standard care. There is an urgent need for further studies to investigate and evaluate new therapeutic approaches or combinations.

Quality of life among health care workers in Arab countries 2 years after COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Assessment of the quality of life (QoL) among healthcare workers (HCWs) is vital for better healthcare and is an essential indicator for competent health service delivery. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic strike, the frontline position of HCWs subjected them to tremendous mental and psychological burden with a high risk of virus acquisition. Aim: This study evaluated the QoL and its influencing factors among HCWs residing in the Arab countries. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using a self-administered online questionnaire based on the World Health Organization QoL-BREF instrument with additional questions related to COVID-19. The study was conducted in three different languages (Arabic, English, and French) across 19 Arab countries between February 22 and March 24, 2022. Results: A total of 3,170 HCWs were included in the survey. The majority were females (75.3%), aged 18-40 years (76.4%), urban residents (90.4%), married (54.5%), and were living in middle-income countries (72.0%). The mean scores of general health and general QoL were 3.7 ± 1.0 and 3.7 ± 0.9, respectively. Those who attained average physical, psychological, social, and environmental QoL were 40.8, 15.4, 26.2, and 22.3%, respectively. The income per capita and country income affected the mean scores of all QoL domains. Previous COVID-19 infection, having relatives who died of COVID-19, and being vaccinated against COVID-19 significantly affected the mean scores of different domains. Conclusion: A large proportion of the Arab HCWs evaluated in this study had an overall poor QoL. More attention should be directed to this vulnerable group to ensure their productivity and service provision.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global health and prompted the need for mass vaccination. We aimed to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent mortality and reduce the risk of developing severe disease after the 1st and 2nd doses. From conception to 28 June 2021, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP, and Google Scholar. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. The pooled vaccine efficacy and effectiveness following vaccination, as well as their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. In total, 22 of the 21,567 screened articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. Mortality 7 and 14 days after full vaccination decreased significantly among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.10, ([95% CI, 0.04-0.27], I2 = 54%) and (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35-0.61], I2 = 0%), respectively. The probability of having severe disease one or two weeks after 2nd dose decreased significantly (OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.19-0.46], I2 = 25%) and (OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.25], I2 = 74%), respectively. The incidence of infection any time after the 1st and 2nd doses diminished significantly (OR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.4], I2 = 100%) and (OR = 0.179 [95% CI, 0.15-0.19], I2 = 98%), respectively. Also, incidence of infection one week after 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.04, [95% CI (0.01-0.2], I2 = 100%). After meta-regression, the type of vaccine and country were the main predictors of outcome [non-mRNA type, ß = 2.99, p = 0.0001; country UK, ß = -0.75, p = 0.038; country USA, ß = 0.8, p = 0.02]. This study showed that most vaccines have comparable effectiveness, and it is purported that mass vaccination may help to end this pandemic.

Mental health of frontline healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 in Egypt: A call for action.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization (WHO) declared Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic in March 2020. Such widespread outbreaks are associated with adverse mental health consequences. AIMS: To evaluate mental health outcomes among Egyptian healthcare workers (HCW) treating patients with confirmed or suspected Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to direct the promotion of mental wellbeing, by screening for symptoms of anxiety, insomnia, depression and stress, and analyzing potential risk factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional, hospital-based survey study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 502 HCW dealing with COVID-19. HCW were surveyed in 20 hospitals (Fever, Chest, and Quarantine hospitals) in different parts of Egypt, in April and May 2020. RESULTS: Among the 502 HCW surveyed; 60.0% were physicians, 16.1% were specialized nurses, and 23.9% were non-specialized nurses. About 35.3% worked in chest hospitals, 17.5% in fever hospitals, and 47.2% in quarantine hospitals. A considerable proportion of HCW had symptoms of anxiety, insomnia, depression, and stress. Females were at higher risk of experiencing symptoms of severe anxiety (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.12-3.05; p = .016), severe depression (OR, 2.013; 95% CI, 1.17-3.4; p = .011), and severe stress (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; p < .001). Fever hospital workers were at higher risk of severe depression (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09; p < .01), compared to Quarantine hospital workers. CONCLUSION: Ensuring proper mental health support for HCW is an important component of public health measures for addressing the COVID-19 epidemic and safeguarding the continuity of appropriate medical service.