Search

Background and Aims: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) often demonstrate impaired antibody response to influenza/hepatitis B vaccines. Hence, we compared anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in non-severe COVID-19 patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: Records of non-severe COVID-19 patients admitted at our institution between April 10, 2020 and May 20, 2020 were retrieved. Qualitative detection of total (IgG + IgM) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody was performed using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay in plasma samples collected at least 14 days post-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmation of diagnosis., Results: Thirty-one non-severe COVID-19 patients were included. Nine patients (29%) had T2DM with mean HbA 1c at admission of 8.3 ± 1.0%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody was estimated at a median of 16 (14-17) days post-PCR confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis. Only three patients (10%) were seronegative, and all had T2DM. Patients with T2DM were more likely to have non-detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than those without DM (p = 0.019)., Conclusions: COVID-19 patients with T2DM may not undergo seroconversion even after two weeks of diagnosis. Impaired seroconversion could theoretically increase the risk of reinfections in patients with DM. However, the finding requires validation in large-scale studies involving serial estimations of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with and without DM., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Many drugs have been tried for the treatment/prevention of COVID-19 with limited success. Direct household contacts of COVID-19 patients are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been tried against COVID-19 owing to its in vitro virucidal action against SARS-CoV-2, but the role of HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) remains inconclusive. In this open-label, controlled clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals who had direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases or had undertaken international travel in the last 2 weeks were offered HCQ prophylaxis and assigned to PEP (n = 132) or control (n = 185) group. The PEP group received HCQ 800 mg on Day 1 followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks. Both groups undertook home quarantine for 2 weeks along with social distancing and personal hygiene. Over 4-week follow-up, 50/317 participants (15.8%) had new-onset COVID-19. The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly (P = 0.033) lower in the PEP (14/132; 10.6%) compared to the control (36/185; 19.5%) group (total absolute risk reduction, -8.9% points). The NNT to prevent the occurrence of 1 COVID-19 case was 12. Overall relative risk was 0.59 (95% CI 0.33-1.05). Compliance was good. The most common adverse event was epigastric discomfort with burning sensation (three participants), with no serious adverse events. PEP with HCQ has the potential for the prevention of COVID-19 in at-risk individuals. Until definitive therapy is available, continuing PEP with HCQ may be considered in suitable at-risk individuals. Further randomised clinical trials with larger samples are required for better evaluation of HCQ as PEP for COVID-19 prevention., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.)

COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a disaster for the human beings. All the Governments across the globe have been preparing to deal with this medical emergency, which is known to be associated with mortality in about 5% of the sufferers. Gradually, it is seen that, many patients with COVID-19 infection have mild symptoms or are asymptomatic. Due to the risk of infecting others, persons with COVID-19 infection are kept in isolation wards. Because of the isolation, the fear of death, and associated stigma, many patients with COVID-19 infection go through mental distress. In this report, we discuss the experience of 3 persons diagnosed with COVId-19 infection and admitted to the COVID ward., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19 was contentious. In this randomized control double-blind clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals with direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were randomized into PEP/HCQ (N = 574) and control/placebo (N = 594) group. The PEP/HCQ group received tablet HCQ 400 mg q 12 hourly on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks, and the control/Placebo group received matching Placebo. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar (p = 0.761) in PEP [N = 24 out of 574, (4.2%)] and control [N = 27 out of 594, (4.5%)] groups. Total absolute risk reduction for the incidence of new-onset COVID-19 was -0.3% points with an overall relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.60) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 333 to prevent the incident of one case of COVID-19. The study found that, PEP with HCQ was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Though HCQ is a safer drug, the practice of irrational and indiscriminate use of HCQ for COVID-19 should be restrained with better pharmacovigilance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate an active matrix metalloproteinase (MMP‐8) point‐of‐care diagnostic tool in COVID‐19 patients with periodontal disease. Subjects, Materials, and Methods: Seventy‐two COVID‐19‐positive and 30 COVID‐19‐negative subjects were enrolled in the study. Demographic data were recorded, periodontal examination carried out, and chairside tests run for evaluating the expression of active MMP‐8 (aMMP‐8) in the site with maximum periodontal breakdown via gingival crevicular fluid sampling as well as via a mouth rinse‐based kit for general disease activity. In COVID‐19‐positive patients, the kits were run again once the patients turned COVID‐19 negative. Results: The overall (n = 102) sensitivity/specificity of the mouthrinse‐based kits to detect periodontal disease was 79.41%/36.76% and that of site‐specific kits was 64.71%/55.88% while adjusting for age, gender, and smoking status increased the sensitivity and specificity (82.35%/76.47% and 73.53%/88.24, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for the adjusted model revealed very good area under the ROC curve 0.746–0.869 (p <.001) and 0.740–0.872 (p <.001) (the aMMP‐8 mouth rinse and site‐specific kits, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed in the distribution of results of aMMP‐8 mouth rinse test (p =.302) and aMMP‐8 site‐specific test (p =.189) once the subjects recovered from COVID‐19. Conclusions: The findings of the present study support the aMMP‐8 point‐of‐care testing (PoCT) kits as screening tools for periodontitis in COVID‐19 patients. The overall screening accuracy can be further increased by utilizing adjunctively risk factors of periodontitis. The reported noninvasive, user‐friendly, and objective PoCT diagnostic methodology may provide a way of stratifying risk groups, deciding upon referrals, and in the institution of diligent oral hygiene regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vitamin D has an immunomodulatory role but the effect of therapeutic vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 infection is not known.Aim: Effect of high dose, oral cholecalciferol supplementation on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance.Design: Randomised, placebo-controlled.Participants: Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive vitamin D deficient (25(OH)D<20 ng/ml) individuals.Intervention: Participants were randomised to receive daily 60 000 IU of cholecalciferol (oral nano-liquid droplets) for 7 days with therapeutic target 25(OH)D>50 ng/ml (intervention group) or placebo (control group). Patients requiring invasive ventilation or with significant comorbidities were excluded. 25(OH)D levels were assessed at day 7, and cholecalciferol supplementation was continued for those with 25(OH)D <50 ng/ml in the intervention arm. SARS-CoV-2 RNA and inflammatory markers fibrinogen, D-dimer, procalcitonin and (CRP), ferritin were measured periodically.Outcome Measure: Proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative before day-21 and change in inflammatory markers.Results: Forty SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive individuals were randomised to intervention (n=16) or control (n=24) group. Baseline serum 25(OH)D was 8.6 (7.1 to 13.1) and 9.54 (8.1 to 12.5) ng/ml (p=0.730), in the intervention and control group, respectively. 10 out of 16 patients could achieve 25(OH)D>50 ng/ml by day-7 and another two by day-14 [day-14 25(OH)D levels 51.7 (48.9 to 59.5) ng/ml and 15.2 (12.7 to 19.5) ng/ml (p<0.001) in intervention and control group, respectively]. 10 (62.5%) participants in the intervention group and 5 (20.8%) participants in the control arm (p<0.018) became SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative. Fibrinogen levels significantly decreased with cholecalciferol supplementation (intergroup difference 0.70 ng/ml; P=0.007) unlike other inflammatory biomarkers.Conclusion: Greater proportion of vitamin D-deficient individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection turned SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative with a significant decrease in fibrinogen on high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation.Trial Register Number: NCT04459247. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and outcome of hospitalized children with COVID-19 during the initial phase of the pandemic. Methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted at the dedicated COVID-19 hospital of a tertiary care referral center in North India. Consecutive children aged 14 y or younger who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab between 1 April 2020 and 15 July 2020 were included. Results: Of 31 children with median (IQR) age of 33 (9–96) mo, 9 (29%) were infants. About 74% (n = 23) had history of household contact. Comorbidities were noted in 6 (19%) children. More than half (58%) were asymptomatic. Of 13 symptomatic children, median (IQR) duration of symptoms was 2 (1–5.5) d. Fever (32%) was most common followed by cough (19%), rapid breathing (13%), diarrhea (10%) and vomiting (10%). Severe [n = 4, 13%] and critical [n = 1, 3%] illnesses were noted more commonly in infants with comorbidities. Three (10%) children required PICU admission and invasive ventilation; one died. Median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 15 (11–20) d. Follow up RT-PCR before discharge was performed in 17 children and the median (IQR) duration to RT-PCR negativity was 16 (12–19) d. Conclusions: In the early pandemic, most children with COVID-19 had a household contact and presented with asymptomatic or mild illness. Severe and critical illness were observed in young infants and those with comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The correlation of SARS-CoV-2 viral load with disease severity in different population subsets is still elusive. There is a scarcity of literature regarding this aspect in Indian Population. Aim: To study retrospectively the risk factors and the role of viral load with disease severity among different age groups of North Indian population. Methods: Here we quantified the viral load of 239 positive participants and collected data retrospectively from April 2020 to May 2020 and categorised the patients as per disease severity and population subsets. Results: Asymptomatic patients were found to have higher viral load than the symptomatic patients, though the difference was not found to be statistically significant. The logistic regression analysis showed that contact with laboratory confirmed cases, SARI and ILI were independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 viral load is not significantly associated with disease severity among different population subsets. However, there is a need to carry out more studies with a larger number of patients to validate and confirm the above findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 is an ongoing pandemic with many challenges that are now extending to its intriguing long-term sequel. 'Long-COVID-19ʹ is a term given to the lingering or protracted illness that patients of COVID-19 continue to experience even in their post-recovery phase. It is also being called 'post-acute COVID-19ʹ, 'ongoing symptomatic COVID-19ʹ, 'chronic COVID-19ʹ, 'post COVID-19 syndrome', and 'long-haul COVID-19ʹ. Fatigue, dyspnea, cough, headache, brain fog, anosmia, and dysgeusia are common symptoms seen in Long-COVID-19, but more varied and debilitating injuries involving pulmonary, cardiovascular, cutaneous, musculoskeletal and neuropsychiatric systems are also being reported. With the data on Long-COVID-19 still emerging, the present review aims to highlight its epidemiology, protean clinical manifestations, risk predictors, and management strategies. With the re-emergence of new waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Long-COVID-19 is expected to produce another public health crisis on the heels of current pandemic. Thus, it becomes imperative to emphasize this condition and disseminate its awareness to medical professionals, patients, the public, and policymakers alike to prepare and augment health care facilities for continued surveillance of these patients. Further research comprising cataloging of symptoms, longer-ranging observational studies, and clinical trials are necessary to evaluate long-term consequences of COVID-19, and it warrants setting-up of dedicated, post-COVID care, multi-disciplinary clinics, and rehabilitation centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study was performed to investigate the presence of SARSCoV-2 virus in wounds of COVID-19 positive patients. Methods This is a single-center observational study. COVID-19 patients with wounds (traumatic/infective/surgical) were included in this study. Preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative specimens were collected and analyzed with real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to know the presence of the virus. Results A total of eight patients were included in this study. Eleven samples were collected (seven wound swabs, two peritoneal fluids, and two tissue specimens) and analyzed. None of the samples from the wound tested positive for the virus while they were tested positive for nasal swab taken simultaneously or within 3 days prior. Conclusion The wounds of COVID-19 patients are considered negative and can be managed with routine wound precautions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy is one of the promising therapies being tried for COVID-19 patients. This passive immunity mode involves separating preformed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from a recently recovered COVID-19 patient and infusing it into a patient with active disease or an exposed individual for prophylaxis. Its advantages include ease of production, rapid deployment, specificity against the target infectious agent, and scalability. In the current pandemic, it has been used on a large scale across the globe and also in India. However, unequivocal proof of efficacy and effectiveness in COVID-19 is still not available. Various CP therapy parameters such as donor selection, antibody quantification, timing of use, and dosing need to be considered before its use. The current review attempts to summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for setting up CP protocols in clinical and research settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]