The effectiveness of blood glucose and blood ketone measurement in identifying significant acidosis in diabetic ketoacidosis patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a potentially fatal complication of type 1 diabetes, have hyperglycemia, ketonemia and metabolic acidosis. Blood glucose and blood ketone results are often used to triage patients with suspected DKA. This study aimed to establish how effective blood glucose and blood ketone (beta-hydroxybutyrate, BOHB) measurements are in identifying patients with significant acidosis and sought to validate existing diagnostic BOHB thresholds. METHODS: Initial Emergency Department results on 161 presumptive DKA episodes in 95 patients (42 F, 53 M, age range 14-89 years) containing a complete dataset of D (glucose), K (BOHB) and A (Bicarbonate [HCO3] and pH) results. RESULTS: Blood glucose correlated poorly with BOHB (r = 0.28 p = 0.0003), pH (r= -0.25, p = 0.002) and HCO3 (r= -0.17, p = 0.04). BOHB, though better, was still limited in predicting pH (r = -0.44, p < 0.0001) and HCO3 (r = -0.49, p < 0.0001). A HCO3 of 18mmol/L equated to a BOHB concentration of 4.3mmol/L, whilst a HCO3 of 15mmol/L equated to a BOHB of 4.7mmol/L. Of the 133 of 161 events with HCO3 < 18mmol/L, 22 were not hyperglycemic (> 13.9mmol/L, n = 8), ketonemic (≤ 3mmol/L, n = 9) or either (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The commonly employed BOHB diagnostic cutoff of 3mmol/L could not be verified. Since acid-base status was poorly predicted by both glucose and BOHB, this highlights that, regardless of their results, pH and/or HCO3 should also be tested in any patient suspected of DKA.

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 prime-boost vaccinations: Homologous BBIBP-CorV versus heterologous BNT162b2 boosters in BBIBP-CorV-primed individuals.

BACKGROUND: Booster vaccine doses against SARS-CoV-2 have been advocated to address evidence of waning immunity, breakthrough infection, and the emergence of immune-evasive variants. A heterologous prime-boost vaccine strategy may offer advantages over a homologous approach, but the safety and efficacy of this approach with the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (BNT: Pfizer) and inactivated BBIBP-CorV (BBIBT: Sinopharm) vaccines have not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized, non-blinded phase II observational community trial acrossBahrain, investigating the reactogenic and immunogenic responseof participants who had previously received two doses of BBIBP, followed by a third booster dose of either BBIBP (homologous booster) or BNT (heterologous booster). Immunogenicity through serological statuswas determined at baseline and on the following 8thweek. Reactogenicity data (safety and adverse events) were collected throughout study period, in addition to participant-led electronic journaling. RESULTS: 305 participants (152 BBIBP and 153 BNT booster) were enrolled in the study,with 246 (127 BBIBP and 119 BNT booster) included in the final analysis. There was a significant increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels post booster administration in both groups; however, the heterologous BNT arm demonstrated a significantly larger mean increase in the level of spike (S) antigen-specific antibodies (32.7-fold increase versus 2.6, p < 0.0001) and sVNT neutralising antibodies (3.4-fold increase versus 1.8, p < 0.0001), whereas the homologous arm demonstrated a significant increase in the levels of nucleocapsid (N) antigen-specific antibodies (3.8-fold increase versus none). Non-serious adverse events (injection site pain, fever, and fatigue) were more commonly reported in the heterologous arm, but no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Heterologous prime-boost vaccination with the mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine in those who had received two doses of inactivated virus BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) vaccine demonstrated a more robust immune response against SARS-CoV-2 than the homologous BBIBP booster and appears safe and well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registry Number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT04993560.

Randomized controlled trial of favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard care in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 disease.

Favipiravir has antiviral activity against influenza, West Nile virus, and yellow fever virus and against flaviviruses. The objective of this pilot study was to compare three arms: favipiravir; hydroxychloroquine; standard care (no specific SARS-CoV-2 treatment) only, in symptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 in an open-labelled randomized clinical trial. The trial was registered with Bahrain National Taskforce for Combatting COVID-19 on the 7th of May 2020 (registration code: NCT04387760). 150 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 disease were randomized into one of three arms: favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, or standard care only. The primary outcome was the clinical scale at the end of study follow up (day 14 or on discharge/death) based on a points scale. The secondary outcomes were viral clearance, biochemical parameter changes and mortality at 30-days. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved a clinical scale < 2 did not differ between groups. The favipiravir-treated and hydroxychloroquine-treated group showed increased viral clearance (OR, 95%CI 2.38, 0.83-6.78, OR, 95%CI 2.15, 0.78-5.92, respectively) compared to standard care, but this was not significant. The biochemical profile did not differ between groups, except for the platelet count (P < 0.03) and uric acid (P < 0.004) that were higher with favipiravir-treatment. Primary or secondary outcome measures did not differ between favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard therapy for mild to moderate COVID-19 disease; therefore, whilst favipiravir therapy appeared safe with a trend to increased viral clearance, there was no superior therapeutic utility.Clinical trials registration. NCT04387760. Registration date: 07/05/2020.

Exploring the oral health experiences of a rural population in Sudan.

This paper explores the beliefs of a rural population in the Sudan in relation to the causes of oral diseases and their attitudes towards traditional healers and treatments. Qualitative methods, using ethnography and narrative, explored people's experiences. The study identifies conflicting narratives concerning oral health with coherent cultural beliefs and attitudes appearing to underpin oral health related behaviours.