Comparing Simvastatin Monotherapy V/S Simvastatin-Ezetimibe Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Hyperlipidemia: A Meta-Analysis and Review.

Longstanding hyperlipidemia can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Statins are currently the mainstay of treatment in hyperlipidemia. Combination therapy of statin with ezetimibe is only indicated for severe hypercholesterolemia and very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) population. There is a paucity of studies comparing statin monotherapy vs combination therapy with ezetimibe. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of the existing literature and compare the effectiveness of statin monotherapy with statin-ezetimibe combination therapy in the management of hyperlipidemia. A systematic electronic search of the scientific literature was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials comparing simvastatin monotherapy vs simvastatin-ezetimibe combination therapy between the years 2000 and 2021 and published in English language were included. Fifteen studies were included in the final analysis. The main outcomes that were compared were a reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Our study showed that combination therapy led to a higher reduction of LDL-C (Mean difference: -20.22(-26.38, -14.07); P<0.0001) compared to monotherapy with a statin alone. There was no significant difference in the reduction of HDL-C values (Mean difference: -0.07(-0.45,0.32); P-0.04) between the two groups. Our study indicates that the combination therapy of simvastatin and ezetimibe is more effective in reduction of LDL-C levels compared to simvastatin monotherapy alone. Currently, guidelines recommend combination therapy only for severe hypercholesterolemia and high-risk ASCVD patients, more studies are needed to study the effectiveness of simvastatin-ezetimibe combination therapy in low-risk ASCVD population.

Neurological Manifestations and Their Effect on Outcome in Second Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

AIM: There is a need for a better understanding of the relation of various neurological symptoms and complications with manifestations and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hence, we planned this study to get an insight into the relation of neurological manifestations and COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study. All patients ≥18 years in age, admitted with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study. Their clinical records were accessed for collecting demographic and laboratory data. The data collected were analyzed for prevalence and pattern of neurological symptoms at admission and neurological complications developed during hospitalization. It was also analyzed to find the relation of neurological manifestations with duration of hospital stay, requirement of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) or ventilator, severity of disease, development of neurological complications, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were included. The mean age was 59.28 ± 13.28 years. The most common neurological symptom at presentation was headache while the most common neurological complications were altered sensorium, cerebrovascular stroke, seizure, and encephalitis. Significantly, more patients with neurological complications than those without had severe disease and needed ventilation. Duration of hospitalization was significantly longer (16.26 ± 5.15 vs 12.73 ± 4.89, p = 0.0173) and mortality was also significantly higher (OR 6.59, 95% CI 2.23-19.43; p = 0.0006) in patients with neurological manifestations. CONCLUSION: The presence of neurological manifestations is associated with greater morbidity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 and thus warrants more aggressive treatment. However, a study of association of individual neurological manifestation with severity of COVID-19 will provide a more meaningful insight regarding the approach to the management of such patients.

A holistic care approach to combat the COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-1) 9 pandemic is spreading like a wildfire across the globe. For its containment, measures such as isolation and quarantine are followed. The patients tested positive for COVID-19 disease are kept in isolation with no interaction with the family members leading to negative mental health consequences. To address this, Parul Sevashram Hospital adapted to a more holistic approach to treatment. METHODOLOGY: A process documentation of the best practices was undertaken. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were used to gather responses of the project implementers (n = 2), physiotherapists (n = 2), dietician (n = 1), Ayurveda practitioners (n = 2), and staff nurses (n = 2) who were mainly involved in tailoring the package of services to be offered as well as their implementation. In addition, KIIs were also conducted with the patients (n = 10) their views on the additional package of services offered to them and the overall level of satisfaction with the care. FINDINGS: The holistic care services involved diet therapy, physiotherapy and yoga, AYUSH medicines for boosting immunity, music therapy and books and indoor games. Few implementation challenges include convincing healthcare workers for providing care to COVID patients, availing raw materials for preparing AYUSH medicines during lockdown. Trainings were also provided to HCW on infection control practices, provided monetary incentive and mobilised the existing resources for addressing the challenges. CONCLUSION: The holistic care has potential influence on patient's mental health, recovery rate, and satisfaction of COVID-19 patients. These approaches can be up-scaled with a minimum investment and has a potential to benefit patients both in public and private hospitals.

Cluster-randomised trial to test the effect of a behaviour change intervention on toilet use in rural India: results and methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Effective and scalable behaviour change interventions to increase use of existing toilets in low income settings are under debate. We tested the effect of a novel intervention, the '5 Star Toilet' campaign, on toilet use among households owning a toilet in a rural setting in the Indian state of Gujarat. METHODS: The intervention included innovative and digitally enabled campaign components delivered over 2 days, promoting the upgrading of existing toilets to achieve use by all household members. The intervention was tested in a cluster randomised trial in 94 villages (47 intervention and 47 control). The primary outcome was the proportion of households with use of toilets by all household members, measured through self- or proxy-reported toilet use. We applied a separate questionnaire tool that masked open defecation questions as a physical activity study, and excluded households surveyed at baseline from the post-intervention survey. We calculated prevalence differences using linear regression with generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: The primary study outcome was assessed in 2483 households (1275 intervention and 1208 control). Exposure to the intervention was low. Post-intervention, toilet use was 83.8% in the control and 90.0% in the intervention arm (unadjusted difference + 6.3%, 95%CI 1.1, 11.4, adjusted difference + 5.0%, 95%CI -0.1, 10.1. The physical activity questionnaire was done in 4736 individuals (2483 intervention and 2253 control), and found no evidence for an effect (toilet use 80.7% vs 82.2%, difference + 1.7%, 95%CI -3.2, 6.7). In the intervention arm, toilet use measured with the main questionnaire was higher in those exposed to the campaign compared to the unexposed (+ 7.0%, 95%CI 2.2%, 11.7%), while there was no difference when measured with the physical activity questionnaire (+ 0.9%, 95%CI -3.7%, 5.5%). Process evaluation suggested that insufficient campaign intensity may have contributed to the low impact of the intervention. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the challenge in achieving high intervention intensity in settings where the proportion of the total population that are potential beneficiaries is small. Responder bias may be minimised by masking open defecation questions as a physical activity study. Over-reporting of toilet use may be further reduced by avoiding repeated surveys in the same households. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the RIDIE registry ( RIDIE-STUDY-ID-5b8568ac80c30 , 27-8-2018) and retrospectively on clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04526171 , 30-8-2020).