RESUMEN
Background and Aim: Beta blockers combined with endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) is the most effective means for the prevention of variceal rebleeding. No data are available on the efficacy of carvedilol in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol compared to propranolol as secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized study over a period of 14 months from February 2019 to March 2020. All patients with portal hypertension due to schistosomiasis with at least one episode of variceal bleeding were included and randomized to the propranolol and carvedilol groups. EVL protocol was continued in both groups. Results: Sixty-one patients were eligible and randomized to propranolol (n = 30) and carvedilol (n = 31) groups. There was no significant difference in hemorrhagic recurrence between the carvedilol (n = 1) and propranolol (n = 3) groups (3.33 vs 10%; P = 0.30). At 4 months, there was a significant reduction in mean arterial pressure (-4.13 mm Hg; 95% CI: -6.27 to -1.99; P < 0.05) and heart rate (-12.13 bpm; 95% CI: -13.92 to -10.35; P < 0.05) in the carvedilol group. There was no significant difference between the groups on the mean difference in arterial pressure. One patient in the carvedilol group had breathing difficulty. There were no adverse events in the propranolol group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the efficacy between carvedilol and propranolol. Carvedilol may be an alternative to propranolol for secondary prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding in hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.
RESUMEN
Early and fast detection of COVID-19 patients help limit the transmission and wide spread of the virus in the community and will have impact on mortality by reducing the incidence of infection among vulnerable people. Therefore, community-based screening is critical. We aimed to identify clinical signs and symptoms and epidemiological features that could help discriminate confirmed cases of COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. We found that age (aOR:1.02, 95%CI:1.02-1.03, p < 0.001), symptoms onset between 3 and 14 days (aOR:1.35, 95%CI:1.09)1.68, p = 0.006), fever or history of fever (aOR:1.75, 95%CI:1.42-2.14, p < 0.001), cough (aOR:1.68, 95%CI:1.31-2.04), sore throat (aOR:0.65, 95%CI:0.49-0.85, p = 0.002), ageusia (aOR:2.24, 95%CI:1.42-3.54, p = 0.001), anosmia (aOR:6.04, 95%CI:4.19-8.69, p < 0.001), chest pain (aOR:0.63, 95%CI:0.47-0.85, p = 0.003), myalgia and/or arthralgia (aOR:1.64, 95%CI:1.31-2.04, p < 0.001), household cluster (aOR:1.49, 95%CI:1.17-1.91, p = 0.001) and evidence of confirmed cases in the neighbourhood (aOR:1.92, 95%CI:1.56-2.37, p < 0.001) could help discriminate COVID-19 patients from SARS-CoV-2 negative. A screening score derived from multivariate logistic regression was developed to assess the probability of COVID-19 in patients. We suggest that a patient with a score ≥14 should undergo SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. A patient with a score ≥30 should be considered at high risk of COVID-19 and should undergo testing but also needs prompt isolation and contact tracing.