Cesarean Section in a Maternity Unit of a Tertiary Care Center of Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section is a common obstetric procedure which is done to reduce complications in high risk pregnancies. The aim of study was to find out the prevalence of cesarean section in a maternity unit of a tertiary care center. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 497 pregnant women presenting in a maternity unit of a tertiary center of Kathmandu, Nepal over a period of six months from March to August 2017 after taking ethical approval from Institutional Review Committee (Ref. 24). In this study, the prevalence of cesarean section, perinatal outcome, maternal and neonatal complications if any were observed. Data and descriptive analysis were done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22. Point estimate at 95% Confidence Interval was calculated along with frequency and percentage for binary data. RESULTS: The prevalence of cesarean section was 171 (34.4%) at 95% Confidence interval (30.2-38.7). Most common indication for cesarean section was fetal distress 53 (31%). The maternal complications developed in 11 (6.4%) among those who delivered via cesarean delivery; Surgical Site Infection being the most common maternal complication. The neonatal intensive care unit admission rate among the newborns via cesarean section delivery was 48 (27.43%) and neonatal sepsis 14 (8%) was most common adverse neonatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cesarean rate at the study center is higher than standard target rate of World Health Organization. Neonatal and maternal adverse outcome in current study were comparable with existing literatures.

Favipiravir versus other antiviral or standard of care for COVID-19 treatment: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 causing coronavirus is an enveloped RNA virus that utilizes an enzyme RNA dependent RNA polymerase for its replication. Favipiravir (FVP) triphosphate, a purine nucleoside analog, inhibits that enzyme. We have conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of the drug FVP as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: Databases like Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, preprint sites, and clinicaltirals.gov were searched. The studies with the standard of care (SOC) and FVP as a treatment drug were considered as the treatment group and the SOC with other antivirals and supportive care as the control group. Quantitative synthesis was done using RevMan 5.4. Clinical improvement, negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), adverse effects, and oxygen requirements were studied. RESULTS: We identified a total of 1798 studies after searching the electronic databases. Nine in the qualitative studies and four studies in the quantitative synthesis met the criteria. There was a significant clinical improvement in the FVP group on the 14th day compared to the control group (RR 1.29, 1.08-1.54). Clinical deterioration rates were less likely in the FVP group though statistically not significant (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.14) at the endpoint of study (7-15 days). The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups on viral clearance (day 14: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84-1.33), non-invasive ventilation or oxygen requirement (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42-1.39), and adverse effects (OR 0.69, 0.13-3.57). There are 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in different parts of the world focusing FVP for COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSION: There is a significant clinical and radiological improvement following treatment with FVP in comparison to the standard of care with no significant differences on viral clearance, oxygen support requirement and side effect profiles.