Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) in preventing hospitalisation and death among COVID-19 patients: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous trials and real-world studies have shown that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) reduces hospitalisation and deaths in symptomatic, high-risk, nonsevere COVID-19 patients. However, there was a scarcity of data on its effectiveness in the local setting. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Paxlovid® in reducing hospitalisation and mortality among COVID-19 patients and to identify the types of adverse events that occur after taking Paxlovid®. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-arm prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 categories 2 and 3 treated with Paxlovid® and a matched control group. A standard risk-stratified scoring system was used to establish Paxlovid® eligibility. All patients who were prescribed Paxlovid® and took at least one dose of Paxlovid® were included in the study. The control patients were selected from a centralised COVID-19 patient registry and matched based on age, gender and COVID-19 stage severity. RESULTS: A total of 552 subjects were included in the study and evenly allocated to the treatment and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalisation after diagnosis [Paxlovid®: 26 (9.4%), Control: 34 (12.3%), OR: 0.74; 95%CI, 0.43-1.27; p=0.274] or all-cause death [Paxlovid®: 2 (0.7%), Control: 3 (1.1%), OR 1.51; 95%CI, 0.25-9.09; p=0.999]. There was no significant reduction in hospitalisation duration, intensive care unit admission events or supplementary oxygen requirement in the treatment arm. Ethnicity, COVID-19 severity at diagnosis, comorbidities and vaccination status were predictors of hospitalisation events. CONCLUSION: In this two-arm study, Paxlovid® did not significantly lower the incidence of hospitalisation, all-cause death and the need for supplemental oxygen. Adverse effects were frequent but not severe. Paxlovid® efficacy varied across settings and populations, warranting further real-world investigations.

Analysis of paediatric cochlear implant candidacy: Single centre, retrospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The criteria for cochlear implantation can differ among countries or even among regions in the same country. Patient selection is important for the identification of those children who can benefit the most from cochlear implants. A number of patients who are possible cochlear implant candidates do not meet the assessment criteria; and some of these requirements are modifiable components. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-centre, cross-sectional study used secondary data from 2014 until 2018. A consecutive sampling method was applied and a final sample size of 73 samples was achieved. Potential prelingual hearing loss candidates for cochlear implant aged less than 48 months old in Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital (HRPB), Ipoh Perak were included in this study. The candidacy selection outcome was analysed and reported as proportions. The associations between the evaluation criteria and outcome were examined using regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 73 potential candidates, only 17 (23%) were selected to receive cochlear implants. Bivariate analysis identified hearing compliance, behaviour, medical contraindications and family commitment as significantly associated with cochlear implant evaluation outcome. However, multivariate logistic regression revealed only family commitment as a significant predictor of the outcome of the implant candidacy evaluation (OR 44.7; 95%CI 3.11-643.4; p<0.005). CONCLUSION: Family commitment, a modifiable element, was the key factor affecting the selection of candidates. Addressing the reasons for this effect could increase the number of potential candidates who ultimately receive implants.