RESUMO
Blood centers, which are arguably the backbone of every hospital, depend on blood donors for a constant and regular supply of blood. Like many other fields, the COVID-19 pandemic severely affected blood donations. In this article, we aim to systematically search the studies done on blood donation during the COVID-19 pandemic period, analyze the pandemic's effect on blood donation, and examine the methodology used to overcome the problem. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood donation. Two independent reviewers searched different databases, such as PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for overall study characteristics. We included a total of 15 studies. There was an overall decrease in blood donation of 25%, with some regions showing a decrease of as much as 71%. However, some regions were able to experience a 2-10% increase in blood donation after taking stringent and early measures to prevent such decreases. The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown greatly affected blood transfusion services, resulting in a progressive decline in blood donations that threatened the lives of many patients who were fully dependent on blood transfusion. However, by making appropriate and early decisions and taking action, policymakers and the rest of society can prevent such shortages, potentially saving millions of lives.
RESUMO
Background The Indian state of Jharkhand has the highest rate of wasting (29%) among young children. Mobile audio call follow-up can be used to assess such children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). Aim This study evaluated SAM children during the COVID-19 outbreak and learn more about the status of their home/community care, and caregivers' awareness of integrated child development services (ICDS) and COVID-19 prevention. Methods Contact numbers of caregivers for discharged children were obtained from 54 malnutrition treatment centers (MTCs). In April and June 2020, mentors conducted follow-up interviews using mobile phone calls. Results Seven children (1.72%) were reported dead and 400 were alive, mostly girls (59.5%). Only a few caregivers observed post-discharge ailments (15.4%) and weight loss (7.7%) in their children. Children aged six to 24 months were characterized by continued breastfeeding (88.0%) at most five to six times a day (45.8%). Most of the children were not fed as per maternal infant and young child feeding protocols. Age in months with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.55 (1.00-1.11) as a 95% confidence interval (CI), age category, with an adjusted OR of 4.32 (1.71- 10.94) as 95% CI, and breastfeeding with adjusted OR 1.85 (1.07- 3.21) as 95% CI were three major predictors for a well-fed child. Conclusion Community involvement is crucial in the follow-up of children with SAM for effective rehabilitation. Mobile phone audio call follow-up is a relatively cost-effective approach to tackle geographic barriers and COVID-19 lockdown-induced situations. There are major gaps mainly in informing caregivers on how to manage COVID-19 with breastfeeding.
RESUMO
Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic age, vaccination hesitancy also known as vaccine refusal is a cause for worry since it hinges on the five Cs of confidence, complacency, convenience, calculation, and shared responsibility. The current study was to pinpoint the elements that contribute to breastfeeding women's hesitation to receive the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccine. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tertiary Care Hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Result: Out of 365 nursing mothers, 242 (66.3%) were hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccination. Those who chose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination mostly belong to those aged 18 to 25 (38.1%), living in rural regions (44.9%), and belonging to non-tribal ethnic groups (41.1%). On application of logistic regression, it was found that rural areas had 3 times higher rate of vaccine hesitancy than urban residents, and that husbands' education levels up to the 12th grade had a 3.55 times higher rate and 5 times agriculture by husband's occupation, which was statistically significant (P value less than 0.05) The most prevalent grounds for rejection were fear of side effects (85.8%) and worry of adverse effects on newborns (83.48%). Conclusion: Both husband and wife, who had completed high school and were aware of the vaccination, were fearful of the COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns about the side effects and undesirable effects of vaccination on their newborns were the main reasons for refusal.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chickenpox is a benign, self-limiting disease caused by the varicella-zoster virus (VZV) that is transmitted from person to person with direct contact or airborne spread, which usually lasts for five to seven days. There was a sudden increase in the number of cases of fever along with rashes at two sites in Jharkhand, India. We aimed to survey and establish the etiology and investigate the extent of the disease. METHODS: We defined the case of chickenpox as a person with acute onset of diffuse maculo-papulovesicular rash. From the clinically suspected cases, blood samples were collected and tested for anti-VZV immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G antibodies (depending on the clinical features) with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (Novatec Immundiagnostica GmbH, Dietzenbach, Germany). A detailed history was collected from each case including the history of contacts and immunization status. RESULTS: The outbreak investigations were done at two villages of the two different blocks and one school in the Bharno block. According to the case definition, 16 persons were found affected by the varicella-zoster/chickenpox infection who belonged to five different households of Itkhori village in Chatra district. The age group varied from four to 45 years. The mean age was 20.28 years. Out of 16 cases, 10 (62.5%) cases complained of fever, rashes, and itching, two (12.5%) reported rashes and fever, and four (25%) complained of itching along with rashes. While at the Bharno block of Gumla district, out of 62 cases that fulfilled the case definition, 55 (88.7%) cases complained of fever, rashes, and itching, two (3.2%) reported itching and rashes, one (1.6%) reported vomiting along with fever and rashes, one (1.6%) complained about pain and rashes, one (1.6%) complained of cough with rashes, and four (25%) complained of itching along with rashes. There was neither any death nor any serious complication noted due to varicella. CONCLUSION: Chickenpox is still widespread in Northern parts of India like Jharkhand. Most of the cases were self-limiting and recovered at the Itkhori block, while at the Bharno block, there were 20 active cases and the rest were either recovered or were still in the recovery phase.
RESUMO
Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination becomes a crucial weapon in the pandemic's control. Two vaccines, Covishield and Covaxin, are approved in India to vaccinate against the virus. Hence, the present study was done to determine the factors associated with the development of adverse events after taking the COVID-19 vaccine in a tribal state of India. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional analytical study. All persons who were willing to participate in our study and had received the first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine from January 1 to March 31, 2021, were included. We got 1497 complete responses via (free, web-based Google Docs Editors suite offered by google, Founders- Larry Page Sergey Brin. Menlo Park, California, United States). So our final sample size came out to be 1497 in which analysis was done. The data was compiled in MS excel sheets (Microsoft version 2013, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) and a template was generated which was further analyzed in SPSS version 20 (version 25.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: The total number of respondents who participated in the surveillance of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) was 1497. Among them, a majority have taken the Covishield vaccine followed by Covaxin. The majority of participants were female of age group less than 30 years and above 18 years with a mean age of 33.63 ± 51.51. The most common AEFI was pain at the site of injection, after the first and second dose followed by fever after the first and second dose within 24 h following immunization. Conclusion: We conclude that factors like the type of vaccine, gender, and participants who have allergies have a higher risk of presenting the adverse events after the COVID-19 vaccination.
RESUMO
Ivermectin was popular drug on trial for preventive and therapeutic role in COVID-19. However, there is disagreement concerning the validity of its clinical efficacy. Hence, we conducted a Meta-analysis and Systematic review for effect of Ivermectin Prophylaxis in prevention of COVID-19. The online databases of PubMed (Central), Medline, and Google scholar for randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trial and prospective cohort study were searched up to March 2021. Nine studies were included for analysis, out of which four were Randomized controlled Trial (RCTs), Two Non-RCTs and three cohort studies. Four randomized trial evaluated prophylactic drug Ivermectin, two combination of topical nasal carrageenan and oral Ivermectin two study used in combination of personal protective equipment (PPE) one with Ivermectin and one with Ivermectin/ Iota-Carrageenan (IVER/IOTACRC). In the pooled analysis we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.27 and Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001) The pooled analysis involving the Non-RCTs studies also did not observe significant reduction in the COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.01 and CI = 0.00, 7.97) with significant heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.001).Hence,we conclude that Ivermectin is not the 'magical silver weapon' against COVID-19.
