The Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Preventing Severe Illness and Death - Real-world Data from a Cohort of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background: While long-term studies on the correlates of protection, vaccine effectiveness, and enhanced surveillance are awaited for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, studies on breakthrough infections help understand the nature and course of this illness among vaccinated individuals and guide in public health preparedness. This study aims to compare the differences in the hospitalization outcomes SARS-CoV-2 infection of fully vaccinated individuals with with those of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated individuals. Materials and Methods: Single institution observational cohort study. This study compared the differences in clinical, biochemical parameters and the hospitalization outcomes of 53 fully vaccinated individuals with those of unvaccinated (1464) and partially vaccinated (231) individuals, among a cohort of 2,080 individuals hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive statistics and propensity-score weighted multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical and laboratory parameters were used to compare the differences and to identify factors associated with outcomes. Results: Completing the course of vaccination protected individuals from developing severe COVID-19 as evidenced by lower proportions of those with hypoxia, abnormal levels of inflammatory markers, requiring ventilatory support, and death compared to unvaccinated and partially vaccinated individuals. There were no differences in these outcomes among patients who received either vaccine type approved in India. Conclusions: Efforts should be made to improve the vaccination rates as a timely measure to prepare for the upcoming waves of this highly transmissible pandemic. Vaccination rates of the communities may also guide in the planning of the health needs and appropriate use of medical resources.

Patient Experience of a Neurology Tele-Follow-Up Program Initiated During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Questionnaire-Based Study.

Background: Teleneurology consultations can be highly advantageous since neurological diseases and disabilities often limit patient's access to health care, particularly in a setting where they need to travel long distances for specialty consults. Patient satisfaction is an important outcome assessing success of a telemedicine program. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine satisfaction and perception of patients toward an audio call based teleneurology follow-up initiated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Primary outcomes were satisfaction to tele-consult, and proportion of patients preferring telemedicine for future follow-up. Results: A total of 261 patients who received tele-consult were enrolled. Satisfaction was highest for domain technological quality, followed by patient-physician dialogue (PPD) and least to quality of care (QoC). Median (interquartile range) patient satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale was 4 (3-5). Eighty-five (32.6%; 95% confidence interval 26.9-38.6%) patients preferred telemedicine for future follow-up. Higher overall satisfaction was associated with health condition being stable/better, change in treatment advised on tele-consult, diagnosis not requiring follow-up examination, higher scores on domains QoC and PPD (p < 0.05). Future preference for telemedicine was associated with patient him-/herself consulting with doctor, less duration of follow-up, higher overall satisfaction, and higher scores on domain QoC (p < 0.05). On thematic analysis, telemedicine was found convenient, reduced expenditure, and had better physician attention; in-person visits were comprehensive, had better patient-physician relationship, and better communication. Discussion: Patient satisfaction was lower in our study than what has been observed earlier, which may be explained by the primitive nature of our platform. Several variables related to the patients' disease process have an effect on patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Development of robust, structured platforms is necessary to fully utilize the potential of telemedicine in developing countries.

Comparison of Disease Profiles and Three-Month Outcomes of Patients with Neurological Disorders with and without COVID-19: An Ambispective Cohort Study.

Objective: Neurological emergencies saw a paradigm shift in approach during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with the challenge to manage patients with and without COVID-19. We aimed to compare the various neurological disorders and 3 months outcome in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: In an ambispective cohort study design, we enrolled patients with and without SARS CoV-2 infection coming to a medical emergency with neurological disorders between April 2020 and September 2020. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, and treatment details of these patients were collected and compared. Their outcomes, both in-hospital and at 3 months were assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Results: Two thirty-five patients (235) were enrolled from emergency services with neurological disorders. Of them, 81 (34.5%) were COVID-19 positive. The mean (SD) age was 49.5 (17.3) years, and the majority of the patients were male (63.0%). The commonest neurological diagnosis was acute ischemic stroke (AIS) (43.0%). The in-hospital mortality was higher in the patients who were COVID-19 positive (COVID-19 positive: 29 (35.8%) versus COVID-19 negative: 12 (7.8%), P value: <0.001). The 3 months telephonic follow-up could be completed in 73.2% of the patients (142/194). Four (12.1%) deaths occurred on follow-up in the COVID-19 positive versus fifteen (13.8%) in the COVID-19 negative patients (P value: 1.00). The 3-month mRS was worse in the COVID-19 positive group (P value <0.001). However, this was driven by higher in-hospital morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 positive patients. Conclusion: Patients with neurological disorders presenting with COVID-19 infection had worse outcomes, including in-hospital and 3 months disability.

Silent Hypoxia in Coronavirus disease-2019: Is it more dangerous? -A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Hypoxia in patients with COVID-19 is one of the strongest predictors of mortality. Silent hypoxia is characterised by the presence of hypoxia without dyspnoea. Silent hypoxia has been shown to affect the outcome in previous studies. Methods: This was a retrospective study of a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were hypoxic at presentation. Clinical, laboratory and treatment parameters in patients with silent hypoxia and dyspnoeic hypoxia were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors predicting mortality. Results: Among 2080 patients with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital, 811 patients were hypoxic with SpO2 <94% at the time of presentation. Among them, 174 (21.45%) did not have dyspnoea since the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Further, 5.2% of patients were completely asymptomatic for COVID-19 and were found to be hypoxic only on pulse oximetry. The case fatality rate in patients with silent hypoxia was 45.4% as compared to 40.03% in dyspnoeic hypoxic patients (P = 0.202). The odds ratio of death was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.41-2.97) in the patients with silent hypoxia after adjusting for baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, treatment and in-hospital complications, which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.851). Conclusion: Silent hypoxia may be the only presenting feature of COVID-19. As the case fatality rate is comparable between silent and dyspnoeic hypoxia, it should be recognised early and treated as aggressively. Because home isolation is recommended in patients with COVID-19, it is essential to use pulse oximetry in the home setting to identify these patients.

Clinical features, demography, and predictors of outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection at a tertiary care hospital in India: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The "second wave" of the COVID-19 pandemic hit India from early April 2021 to June 2021. We describe the clinical features, treatment trends, and baseline laboratory parameters of a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and their association with the outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to identify clinical and biochemical predictors of developing hypoxia, deterioration during the hospital stay, and death. RESULTS: A total of 2080 patients were included. The case fatality rate was 19.5%. Among the survivors, the median duration of hospital stay was 8 (5-11) days. Out of 853 (42.3%%) of patients who had COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome at presentation, 340 (39.9%) died. Patients aged >45 years had higher odds of death as compared to the 18-44 years age group. Vaccination reduced the odds of death by 40% (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.6 [0.4-0.9], P = 0.032). Patients with hyper inflammation at baseline as suggested by leukocytosis (OR [95% CI]: 2.1 [1.5-3.1], P < 0.001), raised d-dimer >500 mg/dL (OR [95% CI]: 3.2 [2.2-4.7], P < 0.001), and raised C-reactive peptide >0.5 mg/L (OR [95% CI]: 3.7 [2.2-13], P = 0.037) had higher odds of death. Patients who were admitted in the 2nd week had lower odds and those admitted in the 3rd week had higher odds of death. CONCLUSION: This study shows that vaccination status and early admission during the inflammatory phase can change the course of illness of these patients. Improving vaccination rates and early admission of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 can improve the outcomes.

COVID-19-Related Multifocal Demyelinating Neuropathy: Causation or Association.

COVID-19 produces pulmonary symptoms in the majority of symptomatic patients. However, demyelinating illnesses of the central and peripheral nervous system are reported in few patients. We report a case of multifocal demyelination involving the peripheral nerves as well as the optic nerve who developed these symptoms while on corticosteroid therapy, which was being given for treating the COVID-19-related inflammatory state. He improved with a short course of steroids. This is the first reported case of multifocal demyelinating neuropathy in relation to COVID-19 to the best of our knowledge. Though there have been reports of COVID-19-associated central nervous system and peripheral nervous system demyelinating illness, whether COVID-19 is causative or just an association is yet to be discerned.

Efficacy and safety of antivirals for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has led to a severe medical, social and economic crisis globally. Use of antivirals has given inconsistent results; thus systematic summaries of available evidence are required for any recommendations for treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of antivirals for Covid-19. Methods: The databases we searched were-Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Medrxiv. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two researchers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random effects for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty studies were found eligible for inclusion: 6 randomized controlled trials, 9 cohort studies and 5 case series. Moderate-quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit from the use of remdesivir in improving the number of recoveries (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07-1.31; I2 = 0%) and time to recovery in days (median -3.02; 95% CI -4.98 to -1.07; I2 = 97%). A possibility of lower mortality is suggested by low-quality evidence with remdesivir (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37, I2 = 58%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests no certain benefit of using lopinavir/ritonavir for Covid-19 compared to arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir combined with arbidol or other medications used as controls. Conclusion: Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required for all antivirals to treat Covid-19. At present, remdesivir seems more promising than other antivirals.

Convalescent plasma therapy for Covid-19: A systematic review.

Background: Covid-19 has emerged as a pandemic affecting more than 20 million people till date with few, if any, proven therapy. Convalescent plasma (CP) containing antibodies against the virus has been used with some success. We did a systematic review to synthesize the available data on CP therapy for treatment of Covid-19 to study the efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: Two reviewers searched the published and pre-published literature between 1 January 2019 and 23 June 2020 for studies comparing the use of CP with standard therapy for Covid-19 patients. Data from the selected studies were abstracted and analysed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the quality of evidence was graded as per GRADE. Results: We found 13 case series and 1 randomized trial that fulfilled our search criteria. Of the 12 case series with a total of 264 patients that reported the efficacy outcomes, 11 studies showed favourable results with survival benefit. The only RCT with 103 patients did not show any mortality benefit but was terminated early prior to complete enrolment. A single large study of 5000 patients reported safety outcomes and showed no major adverse events in patient streated with CP. Conclusion: There is very low-quality evidence to suggest efficacy and safety of CP in patients with Covid-19 infection. Well-designed randomized trials are urgently needed to provide robust data.

Anti-interleukin-6 therapies for Covid-19: A systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis.

Background: . Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has emerged as a pandemic by end-January 2020. Of the infected patients, 10%-15% may develop severe or critical illness. So far, no definite treatment is available for Covid-19. Cytokine release syndrome may underlie the pathogenesis of severe and critical disease. Anti-interleukin (IL)-6 therapies are being tried to improve clinical outcomes. Methods: . We did a systematic review to identify the available literature on anti-IL-6 therapies in the treatment of Covid-19 and used the GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence. Results: . Four case series and 10 case reports were identified. On critical assessment, we found that these studies reported some beneficial effect of anti-IL-6 therapy, but all the studies had a high risk of bias. The pooled estimate showed that 42% of patients improved but with a very wide confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 1%-91%) and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 95%). The overall quality of evidence was graded as 'very low'. Conclusions: . Although promising, anti-IL-6 therapy for Covid-19 needs to be tested in randomized controlled trials to provide robust evidence.

Managing Non-COVID Acute Neurology Amidst the Pandemic: Challenges and Work in Progress.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a global health crisis. Non-COVID diseases across specialties have been significantly compromised. The greatest challenge has been to continue providing care to non-COVID cases with minimum transmission risk to health care workers, patients, and caregivers. In this specter, better described as a medical holocaust, we present our experiences of dealing with acute neurological patients who could access our facility. We attempted to work on three key areas - initial screening using a more inclusive, dynamic checklist for COVID suspicion over and above the emergency triage, a mandatory initial holding on a separate floor of our inpatient service equipped with infection control strategies similar to a COVID-designated area, and daily screening of health care workers and caregivers for symptoms and possible exposures. It was a steep learning curve, a couple of close shaves, and many more lessons that went into the development of an algorithm that seems to be working well.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 and 8 June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10,659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution (mean difference - 0.54 days (- 1.19-011)) or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.