COVID-19 versus SARS: A comparative review.

The two genetically similar severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, have each been responsible for global epidemics of vastly different scales. Although both viruses arose from similar origins, they quickly diverged due to differences in their transmission dynamics and spectrum of clinical presentations. The potential involvement of multiple organs systems, including the respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal and neurological, during infection necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the clinical pathogenesis of each virus. The management of COVID-19, initially modelled after SARS and other respiratory illnesses, has continued to evolve as we accumulate more knowledge and experience during the pandemic, as well as develop new therapeutics and vaccines. The impact of these two coronaviruses has been profound for our health care and public health systems, and we hope that the lessons learned will not only bring the current pandemic under control, but also prevent and reduce the impact of future pandemics.

COVID-19: breaking down a global health crisis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the second pandemic of the twenty-first century, with over one-hundred million infections and over two million deaths to date. It is a novel strain from the Coronaviridae family, named Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2); the 7th known member of the coronavirus family to cause disease in humans, notably following the Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS), and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SARS). The most characteristic feature of this single-stranded RNA molecule includes the spike glycoprotein on its surface. Most patients with COVID-19, of which the elderly and immunocompromised are most at risk, complain of flu-like symptoms, including dry cough and headache. The most common complications include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and cardiovascular manifestations. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is mainly via respiratory droplets, either directly from the air when an infected patient coughs or sneezes, or in the form of fomites on surfaces. Maintaining hand-hygiene, social distancing, and personal protective equipment (i.e., masks) remain the most effective precautions. Patient management includes supportive care and anticoagulative measures, with a focus on maintaining respiratory function. Therapy with dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab appear to be most promising to date, with hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, and interferons falling out of favour. Additionally, accelerated vaccination efforts have taken place internationally, with several promising vaccinations being mass deployed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries and stakeholders have taken varying precautions to combat and contain the spread of the virus and dampen its collateral economic damage. This review paper aims to synthesize the impact of the virus on a global, micro to macro scale.

Efficacy and Safety of Biologic Agents in Chronic Urticaria, Asthma and Atopic Dermatitis - A Real-life Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Several biologic agents have been approved for the treatment of asthma, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis. These therapeutic agents are especially useful for patients with severe or refractory symptoms. We present the real-life experience of four of the commonly used biologic agents in the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the demographic, clinical, laboratory and treatment parameters for all patients treated with biologic agents. RESULTS: 270 patients received biologics at our centre between May 2015 and December 2019 with a median age of 36.5 years. Omalizumab was the most prescribed agent (n=183, 67.8%) followed by dupilumab (n=54, 20%), benralizumab (n=22, 8.1%) and mepolizumab (n=11, 4.1%). Urticaria was the commonest treatment indication (n=148, 55%) followed by asthma (n=105, 39%) and atopic dermatitis (n=13, 5%). All chronic urticaria patients were treated with omalizumab and showed improvement in the mean urticaria control test score from 6.7±4.47 to 12.02±4.17, with a p-value of 0.001. Dupilumab was found to be the most commonly prescribed drug for asthma (37%), followed by omalizumab (32%), benralizumab (21%) and mepolizumab (10%). The mean Asthma control test score for all asthmatics combined increased from 17.06 ± 5.4 to 19.44 ± 5.6, with p-value 0.0012 with treatment; FeNO reduced from 60.02 ± 45.74 to 29.11 ± 27.92, with p-value 0.001 and mean FEV1 improved from 2.38L ± 0.8 to 2.67L ± 0.78, with p-value 0.045. Only 4 patients in the entire cohort reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that biological agents are a safe and effective treatment for atopic asthma, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis.