Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19

Background:

          Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious.

Methods: 

         We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only.

Results: 

         

        A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%).

Conclusions:

          Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.

Side Effects After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

    After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

    Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis  After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 14-23, 2020.

As of December 23, 2020, a reported 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the United States, and reports of 4,393 (0.2%) adverse events after receipt of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among these, 175 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that does occur rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours (3). Twenty-one cases were determined to be anaylaxis (a rate of 11.1 per million doses administered), including 17 in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, seven of whom had a history of anaphylaxis. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 13 minutes (range = 2–150 minutes). Among 20 persons with follow-up information available, all had recovered or been discharged home. Of the remaining case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 86 were judged to be nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, and 61 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Seven case reports were still under investigation. This report summarizes the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of case reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, after receipt of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine during December 14–23, 2020, in the United States. 

Treatment Of Anaphylaxis. 

CDC has issued updated interim clinical considerations for use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States (4) and interim considerations for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis (5). In addition to screening for contraindications and precautions before administering COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine locations should have the necessary supplies available to manage anaphylaxis, should implement postvaccination observation periods, and should immediately treat persons experiencing anaphylaxis signs and symptoms with intramuscular injection of epinephrine .

Severe Allergic Reaction:

  During December 14–23, 2020, after administration of 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1,177,527 doses in females, 648,327 doses in males, and 67,506 doses missing sex), reports of 4,393 (0.2%) adverse events after receipt of the vaccine had been submitted to VAERS. Among these, 175 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, based on descriptions of signs and symptoms; 21 of these reports met the Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis, corresponding to an initial estimated rate of 11.1 cases per million doses administered. All reports were Brighton levels 1 or 2 (Table 1). The median age of persons with anaphylaxis was 40 years (range = 27–60 years), and 19 (90%) cases occurred in females. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 13 minutes (range = 2–150 minutes); 15 (71%) patients had onset within 15 minutes, three (14%) within 15 to 30 minutes, and three (14%) after 30 minutes (Figure). In 19 of 21 (90%) reports, patients were treated with epinephrine as part of therapy; one patient received subcutaneous epinephrine and the remaining 18 were confirmed or presumed to have received intramuscular epinephrine based on the report. Four (19%) patients were hospitalized (including three in intensive care), and 17 (81%) were treated in an emergency department; 20 (95%) are known to have been discharged home or had recovered at the time of report to VAERS. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Seventeen (81%) of 21 patients with anaphylaxis had a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, including to drugs or medical products, foods, and insect stings; seven (33%) patients had experienced an episode of anaphylaxis in the past, including one after receipt of a rabies vaccine and another after receipt of an influenza A(H1N1) vaccine (Table 2). No geographic clustering of anaphylaxis cases was observed, and the cases occurred after receipt of doses from multiple vaccine lots. At the time of this report, investigators have been unable to obtain sufficient information to confirm or rule out anaphylaxis in seven cases despite follow-up efforts; these cases remain under investigation.

Non Anaphylaxis Allergic Reaction:

During the same period, VAERS identified 83 cases of nonanaphylaxis allergic reaction after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination with symptom onset within the 0–1-day risk window, 72 (87%) of which were classified as nonserious.§ Commonly reported symptoms included pruritus, rash, itchy and scratchy sensations in the throat, and mild respiratory symptoms. The median patient age was 43 years (range = 18–65 years), and 75 (90%) reported reactions occurred in women. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 12 minutes (range = <1 minute–20 hours); in 61 (85%) cases, onset occurred within 30 minutes, in 11 cases, onset occurred after 30 minutes, and for 11 cases, time of onset was missing. For 56 (67%) case reports, a past history of allergies or allergic reactions was documented ).

 

Evaluation of biomedical waste management practices in multi-speciality tertiary hospital

 

Evaluation of biomedical waste management practices in multi-speciality tertiary hospital.

Background:

                Biomedical Waste (BMW,) collection and proper disposal has become a significant concern for both the medical and the general community The scientific “Hospital waste Management “is of vital importance as its improper management poses risks to the health care workers, waste handlers patients, community in general and largely the environment.

Objectives:

                   To assess current practices of Bio-medical Waste management including generation, collection, transportation storage, treatment and disposal technologies in tertiary health care center.(ii) To assess health andsafetypracticesfor the health care personnel involved in Bio-Medical waste Management.

Materials and Methods:

Waste management practices in tertiary care-centre was studied during May 2010 June 2010. The information/data regarding Bio-Medical Waste Management practices and safety was collected by way of semi structured interview, proforma being the one used for WASTE AUDITING QUESTIONNAIRE. The information collected was verified by personal observations of waste management practices in each ward of hospital.

Results:

SRMS-IMS generates 1. 25Kgs waste per bed per day and maximum waste is generated in wards. The institute has got separate color coded bins in each ward for collection of waste but segregation practices needs to be more refined. The safety measures taken by health care workers was not satisfactory it was not due to unavailability of Personal protective measures but because of un-awareness of health hazards which may occur due to improper waste management practices. Thus it is concluded that there should be strict implementation of a waste management policy set up in the institute, training and motivation must be given paramount importance to meet the current needs and standard of bio-medical waste management.

Depression Among Medical Students in Web-Based Classes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

Introduction

Depression—a mood disorder defined by sadness, inactivity, the loss of appetite or overeating, and difficulty in concentrating—can result in the reduced ability to perform daily activities among some people. Depression is one of the most often identified health issues among college undergraduates and is especially common among medical undergraduates . Previous studies have found that approximately 30% of medical undergraduates in Europe experience anxiety or depression . Mental health disorders among home-quarantined university students have also been found in a previous study, which reported that the prevalence of depression was as high as 9% among university students about 1 month after COVID-19 outbreak in China . A large cross-sectional study that included 44,447 Chinese college students reported an overall prevalence of depression symptoms of 12.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increased prevalence of depression was also observed in the winter 2020 academic semester in a US study .

 Background:

Due to strict, nationwide, comprehensive COVID-19 protective measures, including home quarantine, all Chinese medical students began taking web-based classes beginning in the spring semester of 2020. Home quarantine, web-based classes, and the stress surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic may have triggered an increased incidence of mental health problems among medical students. Although there have been increasing amounts of literature on depression among medical students, studies focusing on positive psychological resources, such as resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, still need to be expanded.

Objective:

This study aims to assess depression among medical students who are taking web-based classes during the COVID-19 pandemic and to investigate the role of coping styles as mediators between resilience and depression.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study of 666 medical students involving stratified sampling in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China, was completed between March 20 and April 10, 2020. The participants responded to a self-administered, smartphone-based questionnaire, which included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire, and Ego Resilience 89 Scale. Hierarchical linear regression and structural equation modeling were used in this study.

Results:

The prevalence of depression among the participants was 9.6% (64/666) in this study. The regression analysis revealed that grade (the year in which the medical student was in training) (P=.013), how well students adapted to web-based classes (P<.001), their levels of resilience (P=.04), and their coping styles were independent predictors for depression (P<.001). Resilience and positive coping styles were negatively related to depression (resilience: P=.04; positive coping styles: P<.001), and negative coping styles were positively related to depression (P<.001). The structural equation modeling analysis showed that the effect of resilience on depression was partially mediated by coping styles (P=.007).

Conclusions:

In this study, it was found that the prevalence of depression was slightly low and coping styles mediated the association between resilience and depression among medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings have significant implications for future studies. Future studies and interventions should aim to improve resilience and promote positive coping styles.