Aspartate Aminotransferase-to-Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) as a Novel Score in Early Detection of Complicated Dengue Fever.

Introduction: The occurrence of dengue fever presents a considerable burden for public health care in developing countries. This study aims to validate APRI as predictor score for severity of dengue fever so that catastrophic events could be prevented, and early triage can save lives. Methods: The retrospective cross-sectional study was done on dengue positive patients from August to November 2023. APRI score was calculated for every patient at the time of admission. The primary end-point was non-complicated disease (Simple dengue fever) vs complicated disease (dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome). ROC curve was used to identify the role of APRI in prediction of dengue complication. Youden index was used to find the cut-off value of APRI along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios. To further evaluate the role of APRI score, patients were divided into two groups, patients with APRI score greater and lesser than cut-off value. The qualitative variables among two groups were compared by chi-square testing. The predictors of complicated dengue were first determined by univariate regression analysis and then confirmed by multivariate regression analysis. Results: The mean APRI score of 135 patients was 20.06 ± 6.31. AUC for APRI score was 0.93 (p < 0.0001) indicating that APRI score calculated at the time of admission is an excellent marker in determining the complicated dengue. The cut-off value for APRI score was 9.04 (sensitivity 84.91%, specificity 89.02%, p < 0.0001). The patients with APRI <9.04 mostly developed simple dengue fever (54.1%) vs DHF (4.4%) and DSS (1.5%), while patients with APRI >9.04 had more DHF (20.7%) and DSS (12.6%) vs simple dengue fever (6.7%). None of the patient died with APRI <9.04 while the mortality rate was 3.7% in patients with APRI >9.04. Conclusion: The APRI score, calculated at the time of admission, is an excellent marker in determining the severe dengue.

Child-Pugh Score, MELD Score and Glasgow Blatchford Score to Predict the In-Hospital Outcome of Portal Hypertensive Patients Presenting with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Experience from Tertiary Healthcare System.

The two most familiar scores used for prognostication of liver cirrhosis are the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP), while the Glasgow-Blatchford (GB) score is used for sorting non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage into high- or low-risk categories. This study evaluates the validity of the CTP, MELD, and GB scoring systems in prognosticating the in-hospital outcome of bleeding portal hypertensive patients. In this study, the ROC curve and Younden index determine the efficacy of three scoring systems. The results indicate that CTP was the most efficient score as the predictor of outcome (AUC = 0.9, cut-off value > 7); followed by MELD (AUC = 0.8, cut-off value > 18) and then the GB score (AUC = 0.64, cut-off value > 14) (p < 0.05). In pair-wise comparison, the difference between CTP and MELD was insignificant (p > 0.05). Patients with a CTP score of >7 had notably higher in-hospital mortality (19.8% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.0001). Similarly, mortality with a MELD score > 18 was significant (14.8% vs. 5.9% (p < 0.0001). The GB score was not a good indicator of the outcome. Platelets, albumin, CTP, and MELD scores were the independent contributors to mortality. Thus, as liver cirrhosis prognosticators, CTP and MELD scores can also both be used as predictive scores of the in-hospital outcomes of bleeding patients due to portal hypertension. Compared to the GB score, CTP and MELD scores are fairly efficient predictors in these patients.

Comparison of Low-Versus High-Dose Steroids in the Clinical Outcome of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

(1) Objectives: Patients with COVID-19 infection have been given various formulations and dosages of steroids over the last year and a half. This study aims to compare the effects of different formulations and doses of steroids on the 30 day in-hospital clinical outcome of patients with severe COVID-19 infection. (2) Material and Methods: An analysis of a retrospective cohort was carried out on patients with severe COVID-19 infection in a high-dependency unit (HDU) between February and July 2021. In total, 557 patients were included in this study. Patients who did not receive steroids (124) were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups based on dosages of steroids (Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day, and Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day), given for 10 days. First, clinical outcome was evaluated on the 10th day of steroid administration in relation to mode of oxygen delivery. Then, Kaplan-Meier analysis was employed to determine 30 day in-hospital survival in relation to the use of steroid. (3) Results: Three groups were statistically equal according to biochemical characteristics. After 10 days of Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day vs. Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, 10.9% vs. 6.2% of patients required invasive ventilation (p = 0.01). The 30 day in-hospital mortality was lowest, 3%, in individuals receiving Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, compared to 3.9% in individuals receiving Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day and 9.9% in individuals receiving Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day, respectively. The median elapsed time was longer than 28 days between admission and outcome for Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, compared to 18 days for Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day and 17 days for Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day (p = < 0.0001). Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day was found to be a positive predictor of clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients on regression analysis. (4) Conclusions: Low-dose Dexamethasone (6 mg/day) is more effective than high-dose Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone in improving the survival outcome of severe COVID-19 cases.

Beneficial Effects of Anticoagulants on the Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients.

(1) Background: Severe coronavirus disease can be complicated by a hypercoagulable state in conjunction with sepsis, increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study aimed to observe the effect of anticoagulants on 30-day high-dependency unit (HDU) outcomes of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients of a tertiary care hospital at Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (2) Methods: A retrospective propensity-based case-control study was carried out to examine COVID-19 patients admitted to the HDU. Patient groups who did and did not receive anticoagulants were labeled as "anticoagulant" and "non-anticoagulant", respectively. Case-control matching (1:1) was performed via propensity scores (calculated by a regression model). Kaplan-Meier and logrank analyses were used to study survival probability. Single predictors of outcomes were determined by Cox regression analysis. (3) Results: The anticoagulant group had elevated D-dimers, advanced age, more comorbidities and a higher frequency of severe disease compared to the non-anticoagulant group (p < 0.05). Therefore, 47 cases and 47 matched controls were selected based on their propensity scores. The primary endpoint was outcome (survived vs. died). The 30-day in-HDU mortality was 25.5% for cases and 61.7% for controls (p = 0.0004). The median time from admission to death was 16 days for the case group and 7 days for the control group (p < 0.0001). The 30-day mortality was 19.1% for the enoxaparin group and 16.4% for the heparin group (p > 0.05). Enoxaparin (therapeutic and prophylactic doses) and heparin (prophylactic dose) were found to be independent factors affecting the outcomes of these patients (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulants play a beneficial role in reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients. Both anticoagulant formulations, enoxaparin (therapeutic and prophylactic doses) and heparin (prophylactic dose), were associated with improving survival among these patients.