RESUMEN
Objectives: The current study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Enoxaparin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) used as monothrapy or polytherapy versus standard care alone in Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients. Methods: The current study included two hundred patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection. Patients admitted to hospital were randomly allocated into four groups: group I: received standard COVID-19 therapy, group II: received Enoxaparin 40mg/day subcutaneously (SC) plus standard therapy, group III: received 400 mg/day HCQ plus standard therapy & group IV: received a combination of 400 mg/day HCQ and Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy. The disease progression was evaluated by duration to a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), length of hospital or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and mortality rate. The safety of treatments was evaluated by measuring adverse effects. Results: The length of hospital stay, ICU admission and mortality were significantly decreased in Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy group versus other groups. Conclusion: These findings suggest that Enoxaparin was safe, effective, and well tolerated and has a role in decreasing the progression of the disease and its complications while HCQ did not discover any evidence of extra therapeutic benefits.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The outbreak has harmed patients with multiple comorbidities and chronic conditions. The pandemic's psychological impact is thought to change their routine of seeking medical care. Research Question or Hypothesis: During COVID-19, patients with chronic conditions may experience anxiety, depression, and stress, and their pattern of seeking medical care may change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2021, a cross-sectional, web-based study of patients with chronic diseases was conducted. Eligible patients (1036) were assessed for psychological disorders, primarily depression, stress, and anxiety, using the DASS-21 scale, and their pattern of receiving medical care during COVID-19. RESULTS: During the pandemic, 52.5% of the patients with chronic diseases were depressed, 57.9% were anxious, and 35.6% were stressed. Patients with chronic diseases who had moderate to severe depression (34.9% versus 45.1%, p = 0.001), moderate to severe anxiety (43.6% versus 53.8%, p = 0.001), or moderate to severe stress (14.9% versus 34.8%, p = 0.001) were significantly more likely to have no follow-up for their chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic conditions experienced significant anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19, which changed their pattern of seeking medical care, and the majority of them did not receive follow-up for their chronic conditions.
RESUMEN
There seem to currently be no therapeutic medications found for the severe coronavirus infection in 2019 (COVID-19). In light of this, it has been hypothesized that the immunomodulatory treatment known as tocilizumab can lessen the inflammatory response that occurs in the respiratory system, speed up the process of clinical benefit, lower the risk of death, and avert the need for ventilators. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) studied patients with a proven infection of SARS-CoV-2 and hyperinflammatory reactions. The inclusion criteria included fever (body temperature > 38 °C), pulmonary infiltrates, or supplemental oxygen. The patients received either conventional treatment with one dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or conventional treatment only. The subjects were randomized to receive either treatment with a 1:1 ratio. A time-to-event test was conducted to determine the time to intubation or death. There was an insignificant difference between the investigated groups regarding the time to death, time to mechanical ventilation, and percentage of deaths. The conventional group's median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 4 (3-6) days, whereas the tocilizumab therapy group was 7 (4.75-10) days. There was a substantial difference in the mechanical ventilation rates in both groups, which were 17 (34%) and 28 (56%), respectively. In hospitalized patients with severe illness and COVID-19, tocilizumab was ineffective in preventing intubation or death. Trials must be larger, however, in order to exclude the potential benefits or harms.
RESUMEN
Background: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) show some evidence to have efficacy in COVID-19 patients. Delivery during noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) or HFNC gives faster and more enhanced clinical effects than when aerosols are given without assisted breath. The present work aimed to compare the effect of BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) mode at two different pressures; low BiPAP (Inspiratory Positive Airway Pressure (IPAP)/Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) of 10/5 cm water) and high BiPAP (IPAP/EPAP of 20/5 cm water), with HFNC system on pulmonary and systemic drug delivery of salbutamol. On the first day of the experiment, all patients received 2500 µg salbutamol using Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. Urine samples 30 min post-dose and cumulative urinary salbutamol during the next 24 h were collected on the next day. On the third day, the ex-vivo filter was inserted before the patient to collect the delivered dose to the patient of the 2500 µg salbutamol. Salbutamol was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results: Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest amount delivered to the lung after 30 min followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. But the significant difference was only observed between low and high-pressure BiPAP modes (p = 0.012). Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest delivered systemic delivery amount followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.017) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). No significant difference was reported between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. The ex-vivo filter was the greatest in the case of low-pressure BiPAP followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.033) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). Also, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. Conclusions: Our results of pulmonary, systemic, and ex-vivo drug delivery were found to be consistent. The low BiPAP delivered the highest amount followed by the HFNC then the high BiPAP with the least amount. However, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high BiPAP.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Awareness about the COVID-19 vaccine's adverse effects is crucial for gaining public trust. As we still lack proof of vaccines' safety, this survey aimed to investigate Egyptians' general awareness of the Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines against COVID-19 and provide considerable evidence on their side effects and complications. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted in Egypt between 20 September and 10 October in 2021, with multiple-choice questions (MCQs) covering all data on vaccine administration confusion, adverse effects or intensity, and complications. RESULTS: Among the 390 participants, 42.3% reported being hesitant before receiving one of the vaccines. About 40.3% of participants were previously infected before getting vaccinated while only 4.6% reported being infected after vaccination. The AstraZeneca vaccine demonstrated higher side effects and symptoms than the Sinopharm vaccine while the Sinopharm vaccine showed a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: People with higher educational levels and chronic respiratory diseases represent an excellent model for accepting COVID-19 vaccination. A booster shot is recommended for people vaccinated with the Sinopharm vaccine due to a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination; however, the Sinopharm vaccine shows a more acceptable safety profile.