Search

Knowledge of the consequences of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension on various body organs among health workers is necessary to educate patients. Body mapping is a tool used for exploring perceptions as a part of qualitative research. This study assesses the perceptions of health-care workers on the effects of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension on the human body using the body mapping technique. All 19 staff members of an Urban Primary Health Center were asked to draw a human body and map the parts affected by uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The mean age of the participants was 35.42 ± 10.54 years, and median years of work experience were 4 (3, 7) years. Fourteen (74%) participants had mapped kidneys and 11 (58%) participants had mapped head/brain indicating stroke to indicate damage due to uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Only 7 (37%) and 4 (26%) participants perceived that feet and eyes could be affected., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Indian Journal of Public Health.)

Background: There are limited global data on head-to-head comparisons of vaccine platforms assessing both humoral and cellular immune responses, stratified by pre-vaccination serostatus. The COVID-19 vaccination drive for the Indian population in the age group 18-45 years began in April 2021 when seropositivity rates in the general population were rising due to the delta wave of COVID-19 pandemic during April-May 2021., Methods: Between June 30, 2021, and Jan 28, 2022, we enrolled 691 participants in the age group 18-45 years across four clinical sites in India. In this non-randomised and laboratory blinded study, participants received either two doses of Covaxin® (4 weeks apart) or two doses of Covishield™ (12 weeks apart) as per the national vaccination policy. The primary outcome was the seroconversion rate and the geometric mean titre (GMT) of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins post two doses. The secondary outcome was the frequency of cellular immune responses pre- and post-vaccination., Findings: When compared to pre-vaccination baseline, both vaccines elicited statistically significant seroconversion and binding antibody levels in both seronegative and seropositive individuals. In the per-protocol cohort, Covishield™ elicited higher antibody responses than Covaxin® as measured by seroconversion rate (98.3% vs 74.4%, p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 91.7% vs 66.9%, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals) as well as by anti-spike antibody levels against the ancestral strain (GMT 1272.1 vs 75.4 binding antibody units/ml [BAU/ml], p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 2089.07 vs 585.7 BAU/ml, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals). As participants at all clinical sites were not recruited at the same time, site-specific immunogenicity was impacted by the timing of vaccination relative to the delta and omicron waves. Surrogate neutralising antibody responses against variants-of-concern including delta and omicron was higher in Covishield™ recipients than in Covaxin® recipients; and in seropositive than in seronegative individuals after both vaccination and asymptomatic infection (omicron variant). T cell responses are reported from only one of the four site cohorts where the vaccination schedule preceded the omicron wave. In seronegative individuals, Covishield™ elicited both CD4+ and CD8+ spike-specific cytokine-producing T cells whereas Covaxin® elicited mainly CD4+ spike-specific T cells. Neither vaccine showed significant post-vaccination expansion of spike-specific T cells in seropositive individuals., Interpretation: Covishield™ elicited immune responses of higher magnitude and breadth than Covaxin® in both seronegative individuals and seropositive individuals, across cohorts representing the pre-vaccination immune history of most of the vaccinated Indian population., Funding: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding from Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Unilever India Pvt. Ltd. (UIPL)., Competing Interests: The project was fully supported by corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding from Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Unilever India Pvt. Ltd. (UIPL) and facilitated by the Office of the Principal Scientific Advisor (Government of India). SM is supported by a J.C. Bose Fellowship from the Department of Science and Technology and is a Margadarshi Fellow of the DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance (IA/M/15/1/502018). All authors declare no other conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

COVID-19 had stormed through the world in early March of 2019, and on 5 May 2023, SARS-CoV-2 was officially declared to no longer be a global health emergency. The rise of new COVID-19 variants XBB.1.5 and XBB.1.16 , a product of recombinant variants and sub-strains, has fueled a need for continued surveillance of the pandemic as they have been deemed increasingly infectious. Regardless of the severity of the variant, this has caused an increase in hospitalizations, a strain in resources, and a rise of concern for public health. In addition, there is a growing population of patients experiencing cardiovascular complications as a result of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. This review aims to focus on what was known about SARS-CoV-2 and its past variants (Alpha, Delta, Omicron) and how the knowledge has grown today with new emerging variants, with an emphasis on cardiovascular complexities. We focus on the possible mechanisms that cause the observations of chronic cardiac conditions seen even after patients have recovered from the infection. Further understanding of these mechanisms will help to close the gap in knowledge on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the differences between the effects of variants.