Risk factors for mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A longitudinal observational study.

Recent literature suggests that approximately 5%-18% of patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may progress rapidly to a severe form of the illness and subsequent death. We examined the relationship between sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory findings with mortality among patients. In this study, 112 patients were evaluated from February to May 2020 and 80 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tocilizumab was administered, followed by methylprednisolone to patients with pneumonia severity index score ≤130 and computerized tomography scan changes. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected. Laboratory biomarkers were monitored during hospitalization. Statistical analyses were performed with significance p ≤ .05. A total of 80 patients: 45 males (56.25%) and 35 females (43.75%) met the study inclusion criteria. A total of 7 patients (8.75%) were deceased. An increase in mortality outcome was statistically significantly associated with higher average levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) with p value (.050), and d-dimer with p value (.024). Bivariate logistics regression demonstrated a significant increased odds for mortality for patients with bacterial lung infections (odds ratio [OR]: 10.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.05-57.40; p = .005) and multiorgan damage (OR: 103.50; 95% CI: 9.92-1079.55; p = .001). Multivariate logistics regression showed a statistically significant association for multiorgan damage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 94.17; 95% CI: 7.39-1200.78; p = .001). We identified three main predictors for high mortality. These include IL-6, d-dimer, and multiorgan damage. The latter was the highest potential risk for in-hospital deaths. This warrants aggressive health measures for early recognition of the problem and initiation of treatment to reverse injuries.

COVID-19 vaccines uptake: Public knowledge, awareness, perception and acceptance among adult Africans.

INTRODUCTION: The willingness of Africa's population to patronise the COVID-19 vaccines is critical to the efficiency of national immunisation programmes. This study surveys the views of adult African inhabitants toward vaccination and the possibility of participating or not participating in governments' efforts to get citizens vaccinated. METHOD: A cross-sectional online survey of adult Africans was undertaken from December 2020 to March 2021. Responses were anonymised. The Pearson Chi-square test was performed to determine whether or not there were any variations in knowledge, awareness, perception and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines among the participants. Binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccines and participate in immunisation programmes. RESULTS: The results indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are more likely to be used by adult Africans over the age of 18 who are largely technologically savvy (55 percent) if the vaccine is made broadly available. A total of 33 percent of those who responded said they were unlikely to receive the vaccine, with another 15 percent stating they were undecided. Aside from that, we found that vaccine hesitancy was closely associated with socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education and source of information. We also found that there were widespread conspiracies and myths about the COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of African adults who participated in the survey indicated they would not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, with majority of them expressing skepticisms about the vaccine's efficacy. It is possible that many of the people who would not be vaccinated would have an impact on the implementation of a COVID-19 immunisation programme that is meant for all of society. Majority of the respondents were unwilling to pay for the COVID-19 vaccines when made available. An awareness campaign should be focused on promoting the benefits of vaccination at the individual and population levels, as well as on taking preemptive actions to debunk misconceptions about the vaccines before they become further widespread.

The Use of Single Therapy With Tocilizumab Versus Combination Therapy With Remdesivir and Tocilizumab in SARS-CoV-2 Patients in El Paso, Texas.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the management of SARS-CoV-2 varies with no definitive clinical guidelines, as scientific evidence across the globe differs in therapeutic options. This study intended to provide some clarity to the insufficient data based on the role of monotherapy with tocilizumab (TCZ) and combination therapy with remdesivir (RDV) and TCZ among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in El Paso, Texas. We evaluated the use of each therapy in the presence of steroids as the standard of care. METHODS:  One hundred and fifty-four SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from four different medical centers in El Paso, Texas, were screened, with 113 eligible for this longitudinal comparative observational study (February 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020). Group 1 (80 patients) received TCZ in the first 24 hours following admission, then methylprednisolone for the next 72 hours and group 2 (33 patients) were given TCZ as detailed in the single therapy group, plus RDV within the first 24 hours. Mann Whitney U test assessed median differences in laboratory biomarkers and Bivariate Logistic Regression assessed the odds of risk. An observation is considered statistically significant when P-value is ≤0.05. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 had a statistically significant lower odds for ventilation use than group 2 (OR=0.34, 95%CI=0.12-0.95, p=0.034), although no statistically significant difference in mortality outcomes was observed across groups (OR=0.43, 95%CI:0.13-1.39, p=0.269). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the use of TCZ in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients in El Paso, with or without RDV, reported no mortality benefit. However, some minimal/non-use of ventilation benefit was observed in group 1. Nonetheless, a randomized controlled trial study is recommended to ultimately determine the combination role of TCZ and RDV among this highly vulnerable group of patients.