Storgaardzachariassen9025
Severe acute respiratory syndrome - Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is mainly transmitted via respiratory secretions through coughing, sneezing, or contact with contaminated surfaces. This virus can be present in feces and many body fluids. The study aimed to screen the hospital environment as a potential source for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and identify the hospital zones with the highest contamination levels.
Swabs were collected from different sites in the hospital before and after routine cleaning/disinfection, transported in vials containing 1-3 mL of viral transport medium, and stored at -80 ℃ as soon as possible until the time of testing. The real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) system targeting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes was used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
Moderate environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by rRT-PCR before routine cleaning/disinfection (52% of the swabs were positive). The hospital surfaces with the highest contamination levels were elevators' buttons, sinks and faucets' handles at the waiting rooms, patient's room and bathroom, call buttons and telephones in the patient's room, toilet bowl surface, the doorknob and light switches at the X-ray room, and the computer keyboard at the staffroom. All the swabs collected after routine cleaning/disinfection were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR.
The hospital environment is a high-risk area that can be contaminated by SARS-CoV-2 through contact, respiratory, and maybe fecal shedding of the virus. To limit this fatal virus transmission, strict adherence to proper hand hygiene with frequent optimal decontamination of hospital environmental surfaces is essential.
The hospital environment is a high-risk area that can be contaminated by SARS-CoV-2 through contact, respiratory, and maybe fecal shedding of the virus. To limit this fatal virus transmission, strict adherence to proper hand hygiene with frequent optimal decontamination of hospital environmental surfaces is essential.
The aim of the study was to determine the survival probability of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who needed mechanical ventilation and to determine the efficacy of Tocilizumab use.
The study was designed as a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients older than 18 years, treated in an intensive care unit. The criteria for admission to the intensive care unit was severe respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. All patients received corticosteroid therapy (methylprednisolone 1-2 mg/kg). Tocilizumab was used at a dose of 8 mg/kg in patients with a severe form of the disease (onset, or developed ARDS), followed by cytokine storm (IL-6 ≥ 40 ng/L and CRP ≥ 50 mg/L).
88 patients were included in the study. Intrahospital mortality was 48.86%. No statistically significant difference was observed between patients with and without tocilizumab therapy. In the group of patients in whom this therapy was applied, the values of intrahospital survival were 45.7%, while in the group wit late initiation of appropriate therapy.
The treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic has been affected to varying degrees. This study is the first to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the treatment and prognosis of rural and urban AMI in developing countries.
A total of 128 patients with AMI in our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic were enrolled. A total of 197 patients diagnosed with AMI before the COVID-19 pandemic were selected as the control group and one year of follow-up was performed.
Hospital stay and the proportion of Killip class ≥ 2 patients were increased among rural AMI patients in the 'during COVID-19' group, compared with the 'before COVID-19' group. Among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) total and rural STEMI patients, the treatment time in the during-COVID-19 group was longer than that in the before-COVID-19 group, whereas only the symptom to door (S to D) total and door to balloon (D to B) were extended in urban STEMI patients. In AMI total and rural AMI patients, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality were increased in the during-COVID-19 group compared with the before-COVID-19 group. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the survival and occurrence of MACEs in AMI total and rural AMI patients were significantly higher in the during-COVID-19 group.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to delayed treatment and worse prognosis in AMI patients. Rural areas appear to be at a greater risk.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to delayed treatment and worse prognosis in AMI patients. Rural areas appear to be at a greater risk.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the side effects of application of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine on the workers at a Mexican hospital.
A cross-sectional study was carried out, in which 1351 workers from a tertiary care center in the Mexican southeast were included. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, and side effects after the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine were obtained through an online survey. The variables were analyzed through descriptive statistics. The presence or absence of side effects was analyzed through the Chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate. The result was considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
A total of 1351 health workers participated in the online survey. The mean age was 37.8 ± 10.9 years and 56.4% were women. Among them, 8.2% suffered from high blood pressure. read more In addition, 76.7% manifested pain in the application area. The presence of side effects was associated with the female gender (p < 0.01). Side effects were more prevalent in younger age (37.2 ± 10.7) than older age (41.5 ± 10.8) (p < 0.01). There was no association with the presence of comorbidities (p > 0.05).
The data suggest that pain in the application area is the most frequent side effect among workers in a Mexican hospital who received the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19. In addition, we observed sialorrhea as a side effect in the studied population and this had not previously been reported. The highest number of adverse events occurred between 24 to 72 hours after application.
The data suggest that pain in the application area is the most frequent side effect among workers in a Mexican hospital who received the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19. In addition, we observed sialorrhea as a side effect in the studied population and this had not previously been reported. The highest number of adverse events occurred between 24 to 72 hours after application.
COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients.
We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021.
Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size.
Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.
Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.
This study investigated the practices and perceptions of Health care workers (HCWs) in Nigeria towards infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs in Nigeria healthcare facilities using a 25-item validated online questionnaire. The hyperlink of the questionnaire was shared with the various professional associations/societies and hospitals in June 2020.
A total of 426 HCWs completed the questionnaire with pharmacists (28.8%), nurses/midwives (22.7%) and medical doctors (20.1%) being the highest respondents. Less than 50% of the HCWs had previous training on COVID-19 and how to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Only one in five HCWs had access to adequate PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the HCWs had good infection control practices with better practices observed among those who attended training on COVID-19 infection and those trained on how to use PPE. Lack of funds to purchase PPEs (55.3%), lack of access to PPE (52.5%) and lack of training on how to use PPE (44.0%) were the most common barriers to adherence to infection control guidelines.
HCWs in Nigeria have limited access to adequate PPE and lack adequate support from health authorities. Attendance of training on the use of PPE and COVID-19 infection were associated with access to adequate PPE and better infection control practices. Training of HCWs, provision of adequate PPE, and support are recommended to improve compliance with infection control guidelines.
HCWs in Nigeria have limited access to adequate PPE and lack adequate support from health authorities. Attendance of training on the use of PPE and COVID-19 infection were associated with access to adequate PPE and better infection control practices. Training of HCWs, provision of adequate PPE, and support are recommended to improve compliance with infection control guidelines.
Using steroids to manage hospitalised coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection has been shown to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and mortality. To date, low-dose dexamethasone and methylprednisolone corticosteroids have been effective in reducing the infection's progress in hospitalised patients. However, it is unknown if high dosages of corticosteroids can achieve a better clinical outcome. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients who are given a 10-day low-dose corticosteroid treatment (IV 2 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone loading dose (LD) then 0.25 mg/kg four times a day (q.i.d.)) with patients given a 10-day high-dose corticosteroid treatment (IV 20 mg dexamethasone once daily (o.d.) or a 1.5 mg/kg prednisolone tablet o.d.).
Retrospective data on hospitalised COVID-19 patients were collected for this study, and the primary outcome measure was the patients' clinical status based on the World Health Organization's (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) on Day-5 and Day-10 post-steroid.
