Clinical and laboratory profile of Expanded Dengue Syndrome: experience of 2019 outbreak from Dhaka, Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: Bangladesh is afflicted with periodic dengue outbreak every few years and one of the worst upsurges was recorded in 2019 during which there was an increasing trend of dengue with unusual symptoms which were not so common before. This study aims to describe the experience of three tertiary care centres of Dhaka regarding the clinical and laboratory, hospital outcome and management profile of the Expanded Dengue Syndrome (EDS) cases admitted from the 2019 outbreak. METHODS: The current work was a cross-sectional observational study which took place from August 1 to December 31 2019 at three major tertiary care centres in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Out of total 2017 screened dengue cases, 49 met the inclusion criteria and 39 were enrolled after taking informed written consent. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and Graph pad prism 9.3.1. A probability value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of the 39 cases, majority were male (79.49%) with median (±IQR) age of 33(±9) years. Hypertension (4; 10.26%) was the most commonly associated co-morbidity. Among the systemic manifestations, most prevalent was hepatitis (38.49%) followed by encephalopathy (12.82%). Majority of the patients were suffering from primary infection (85%). Case fatality rate was 15.38%. Hepatitis and meningoencephalitis were the predominant cause of death. This study records the only known case report of Acute respiratory dress syndrome (ARDS) complicating dengue from Bangladesh. None of the patients from our cohort were managed by steroids. Only two (5.13%) out of 39 cases received antibiotics. INTERPRETATION CONCLUSION: In the year 2019, an unusual rise in EDS cases with about 15.4% fatalities were observed in this study. Hepatitis was the most common presentation and cause of death. Here, we report the first ARDS case encountered in Bangladesh. Despite the multifaceted presentation of EDS, indiscriminate use of antibiotics and steroid was minimal. Early recognition of multifarious features of EDS is important for choosing the targeted treatment option which can avert many deaths. The results of this study underline the necessity for more in-depth research into the risk factors that are contributing to mortality in EDS cases.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.