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.

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.