Search

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the leading causes of chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, resulting in major global public health concerns. The HCV infection is unevenly distributed worldwide, with variations in prevalence across and within countries. The studies on molecular epidemiology conducted in several countries provide an essential supplement for a comprehensive knowledge of HCV epidemiology, genotypes, and subtypes, along with providing information on the impact of current and earlier migratory flows. HCV is phylogenetically classified into 8 major genotypes and 57 subtypes. HCV genotype and subtype distribution differ according to geographic origin and transmission risk category. Unless people with HCV infection are detected and treated appropriately, the number of deaths due to the disease will continue to increase. In 2015, 1.75 million new viral infections were mostly due to unsafe healthcare procedures and drug use injections. In the same year, access to direct-acting antivirals was challenging and varied in developing and developed countries, affecting HCV cure rates based on their availability. The World Health Assembly, in 2016, approved a global strategy to achieve the elimination of the HCV public health threat by 2030 (by reducing new infections by 90% and deaths by 65%). Globally, countries are implementing policies and measures to eliminate HCV risk based on their distribution of genotypes and prevalence.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization guidelines did not make a recommendation on use of remdesivir based on disease severity. Little is known regarding effectiveness of remdesivir in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This has led to a state of dilemma for doctors leaving them skeptical of whether they should continue to recommend the drug or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search adhering to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted from inception until February 20, 2020. Electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Cochrane database, Scopus, Embase) were included. Using dichotomous data for select values, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated applying Mantel Haenszel (M-H) using random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in ventilated and non-ventilated patients. RESULTS: The Remdesivir arm was associated with similar rates of 28-day all-cause mortality (OR: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 - 1.08; P = 0.33). Remdesivir was not found to be favorable for ventilated patients. Non ventilated COVID-19 patients showed a significant lower in-hospital mortality rate as compared with patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support (OR: 6.86, 95% CI: 5.39 - 268.74; P

Background: An unprecedented global effort in identifying potentially viable and emerging drugs for effective treatment of the novel coronavirus disease (2019) is being made. Of the most promising candidate therapies, convalescent plasma (CP), albeit controversial, is approved for emergency use authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The concept rests on passive immunity, achieved by administering plasma with high titers of neutralizing antibodies to reduce severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. The aim of this paper is to assess the clinical improvement, patients’ discharge status and all-cause mortality in convalescent plasma versus standard of care COVID-19 patient groups. Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, a review was conducted from January, 2020, until October, 2020 employing keywords including “convalescent plasma”, “clinical improvement, “mortality”, “adverse events”, “viral load”, “dosing”, and survival.” Dichotomous data for all-cause mortality, patients’ discharge status, and clinical improvement at day 14 of treatment were meta-analyzed applying the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) random effects model using Review Manager 5.4. Results: A total of 627 (23.9%) patients in the CP group and 1997 (76.1%) patients in the control group were pooled. The studies were conducted in the United States, China, Netherlands, and Iran. The CP group had a lower association to all-cause mortality as compared to the control group [OR: 0.69; CI: 0.50 to 0.96; P=0.03]. Patients who received CP had higher probability of discharge during the study course [OR: 1.87; CI: 1.1 to 3.18; P=0.02]. Bias was expected in the analysis due to the stratified of study designs included. Conclusion: Convalescent plasma therapy may be an effective and vital tool with promising historical, current, and expected clinical trial evidence of metrics such as increased safety and reduction of all-cause mortality.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predisposes patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to risk factors, severe infection, and severe inflammatory responses. The objective is to determine the risk of developing VTE after corticosteroid administration during COVID-19 treatment. Using PRISMA reporting guidelines, a review was conducted from inception until 20 September 2020 with MESH terms including “venous thromboembolism” and “covid-19,” using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and WHO Global Database. The inclusion criteria included studies with COVID-19 patients aged 18 years and older with VTE diagnosed by duplex ultrasonography or computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Exclusion criteria were studies with non COVID-19 patients and non-VTE patients aged less than 18 years. Quality appraisal was conducted of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random-effect model using 95% confidence intervals, and significance of findings was assessed using Review Manager V5.4.We included 12 observational studies with 2801 patients (VTE n = 434; non-VTE; n = 2367). Patients had a higher risk of presenting with VTE when being administered corticosteroids during treatment of COVID-19 (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.77, I2 = 0%). A positive effect size was found (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.32, I2 = 85%) for D-dimer laboratory values (µg/mL) in the VTE group. While critically ill COVID-19 patients are more likely to require corticosteroid treatment, it may be associated with increased risk of VTE, and poor clinical prognosis. Risk assessment is warranted to further evaluate patients as case-by-case in reducing VTE and worsening clinical outcomes.

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced hospitals to prioritize COVID-19 patients, restrict resources, and cancel all non-urgent elective cardiac procedures. Clinical visits have only been facilitated for emergency purposes. Fewer patients have been admitted to the hospital for both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI) and a profound decrease in heart failure services has been reported. A similar reduction in the patient presentation is seen for ischemic heart disease, decompensated heart failure, and endocarditis. Cardiovascular services, including catheterization, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), cardiac investigations such as electrocardiograms (ECGs), exercise tolerance test (ETT), dobutamine stress test, computed tomography (CT) angiography, transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) have been reported to have declined and performed on a priority basis. The long-term implications of this decline have been discussed with major concerns of severe cardiac complications and vulnerabilities in cardiac patients. The pandemic has also had psychological impacts on patients causing them to avoid seeking medical help. This review discusses the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of various cardiology services and aims to provide strategies to restore cardiovascular services including structural changes in the hospital to make up for the reduced staff personnel, the use of personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, and provides alternatives for high-risk cardiac imaging, cardiac interventions, and procedures. Implementation of the triage system, risk assessment scores, and telemedicine services in patients and their adaptation to the cardiovascular department have been discussed.

Objectives Diabetes is prevalent in the Indian population, to the extent that the diabetes burden matches that of nutritional anemia. We aimed to determine the effects of iron and vitamin B12 deficiency anemia on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations in individuals without diabetes. Material and methods The study comprises 100 patients with iron deficiency anemia, 100 with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia, and 100 healthy volunteers as a control group. Each of the first two groups was subdivided into two groups depending on the severity of anemia based on Hb levels. We treated with iron replenishment in the iron deficiency group and B12 replenishment in the B12 deficiency group for three months. We noted HbA1c levels before and after the therapy. Data were entered into the SPSS package. For comparing pre and post-therapy levels, we used the Paired 't' test. Results The mean HbA1c before treatment were 6.1% ± 0.23% and 5.5% ± 0.24%, and the values after treatment were 5.1% ± 0.14% and 4.6% ± 0.2% in severe iron deficiency anemia subgroup and mild to moderate subgroup, respectively. The mean HbA1c in the iron-deficiency anemia control group was 5.2% ± 0.2%. The mean HbA1c levels before treatment were 5.9% ± 0.3% and 5.6% ± 0.19%, and after treatment were 5.0% ± 0.15% and 4.9% ± 0.16% in severe and mild to moderate B12 deficiency anemia, respectively. The mean HbA1c in the vitamin B12 deficiency anemia control group was 5.1% ± 0.2%. Conclusion HbA1c in both types of anemia subjects showed a significant decrease with appropriate therapy. Physicians should consider rechecking patient haemoglobin values and correcting a patient's anemia before determining the patient's glycemic status using HbA1c to avoid misinterpretation of their diabetes status.

BACKGROUND: The high rate of transmission and infection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health emergency of major epidemiological concern. No definitive treatments have been established, and vaccinations have only recently begun. We aim to review the efficacy and safety of Interferon Beta (IFN-s) in patients who have a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search from PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were conducted from December 2019 to December 2020 to review the efficacy and safety of IFN-s in adult patients with COVID-19 confirmed. We included randomized controlled trials, case reports, and experimental studies. Correspondences, letters, editorials, reviews, commentaries, case control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that did not include any new clinical data were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 66 searched studies, 8 were included in our review. These studies demonstrated that although IFN-s did not reduce the time to clinical response, there was an increase in discharge rate at day 14 and a decrease in mortality at day 28. The time to negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was shown to be significantly shortened in patients receiving IFN-s, along with a lower nasopharyngeal viral load. Further, patients receiving IFN-s had a less significant rise in IL-6. IFN-s was shown to decrease intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, the requirement of invasive ventilation in severe cases, and improve the survival rate compared to control groups. There were no severe adverse events reported. Our review found that patients who received early treatment with IFN-s experienced significantly reduced length of hospitalization, mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation. A greater chance of clinical improvement and improved imaging studies was noted in patients who received IFN-s. There were no reported deaths associated with the addition of IFN-s. Further randomized trials involving more significant sample sizes are needed to better understand the effect of IFN-s on survival in COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This review identified encouraging data and outcomes of incorporating IFN-s to treat COVID-19 patients. IFN-s has been shown to decrease hospital stay's overall length and decrease the severity of respiratory symptoms when added to the standard of care. Also, in some studies, it has been demonstrated to reduce the length of ICU stay, enhance survival rate, and decrease the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. There were minor side effects reported (neuropsychiatric symptoms and hypersensitivity reaction). However, randomized clinical trials with a large sample size are needed to assess IFN-s's benefit precisely.