ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies have gained attention in developing countries owing to its benefits portrayed by few clinical trials. However, no studies until now have been undergone in India. METHODS: A retro-prospective comparative observational study was conducted in symptomatic COVID19 patients to evaluate the impact of Casirivimab and Imdevimab antibody cocktail in the high-risk population. Through an extensive data retrieval for 6 months, 152 samples were documented and sorted into test (Casirivimab and Imdevimab treated patients, n = 79) and control (Non- Casirivimab and Imdevimab treated individuals, n = 73) subsets. The research had two phases; first, estimation of mechanical ventilation and high flow oxygen requirement and mortality in samples amidst the treatment, and second was the post COVID19 patients' feedback through validated (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.7) questionnaire that evaluated their health and vaccination status, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: We noticed lesser requisite for mechanical ventilation (6.3%; p < 0.001), high flow oxygen (5.1%; p < 0.001) and no death during Casirivimab and Imdevimab therapy. Meanwhile, non-vaccinated test groups were not on mechanical ventilation and those fully immunized seldom entailed high flow oxygen (test, 6.3%; control, 41.9%, p < 0.01). On evaluating the post COVID19 status of each patient in the study, 90.1% of the test samples were healthy and 97.2% were satisfied with the treatment than those in control group. CONCLUSIONS: Casirivimab and Imdevimab regimen was clinically beneficial for high risk COVID19 patients than those treated without the antibody cocktail.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A prospective study of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), who met the inclusion criteria, was carried out. It was conducted in the cardiology department of tertiary care referral hospital in Kerala. An attempt was made to identify and determine the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in patients presenting with ACS and to evaluate the current treatment practice pattern of ACS and to compare it with standard treatment guidelines, thereby improving the quality of life of patients. METHODS: Data of patients who met the inclusion criteria were collected in specially designed data collection form. The form included the patient data such as demographics, risk factors, procedures performed during the hospital stay, and in-hospital and discharge drug therapy. Patients with ACS included those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina (UA). Descriptive statistics were performed. All statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 16.0. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were studied having mean age of 62.57 years±12.18 years. Fifty-one percent were having NSTEMI, 33% were having STEMI, and 16% were having UA. Hypertension (63%) and diabetes (51%) were more prevalent in both men and women. Smoking among males was consistently high (48.6%), being highest among adults. Cardiac procedures performed include percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in 45%, coronary angiogram (CAG) in 20%, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in 7%. In-hospital medications were antiplatelets (100%), thrombolytics (28%), statins (97%), anticoagulants (80%), nitrates (73%), ß-blocker (32%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (6%), angiotensin receptor blocker (9%), potassium opener (7%), vasodilator (1%), calcium channel blocker (9%), α-blocker (7%), and α+ß blocker (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The contemporary profile of treatment patterns for patients with ACS indicates an improved adherence to the guidelines. The alarmingly high rate of modifiable risk factors remains a cause of concern and a challenge that needs to be tackled, as better control of cardiovascular risk factors is expected to have a favorable impact on the incidence of ACS.
