Post COVID-19 sequelae are a constellation of symptoms often reported after recovering from COVID-19. There is a need to better understand the clinical spectrum and long-term course of this clinical entity. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical features and risk factors of post COVID-19 sequelae in the North Indian population. This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary healthcare centre in Northern India between October 2020 and February 2021. Patients aged >18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were recruited after at least two weeks of diagnosis, and details were captured. A total of 1234 patients were recruited and followed up for a median duration of 91 days (IQR: 45-181 days). Among them, 495 (40.1%) had persistent symptoms post-discharge or recovery. In 223 (18.1%) patients, the symptoms resolved within four weeks; 150 (12.1%) patients had symptoms till 12 weeks, and 122 (9.9%) patients had symptoms beyond 12 weeks of diagnosis/symptom-onset of COVID-19. Most common symptoms included myalgia (10.9%), fatigue (5.5%), shortness of breath (6.1%), cough (2.1%), insomnia (1.4%), mood disturbances (0.48%) and anxiety (0.6%). Patients who were hospitalized were more likely to report fatigue as a feature of long COVID. Hypothyroidism (OR: 4.13, 95% CI: 2.2-7.6, p-value < 0.001) and hypoxia (SpO 2 ≤ 93%) (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.4, p-value 0.012) were identified as risk factors for long COVID sequelae. In conclusion, long COVID symptoms were common (22%), and 9.9% had the post COVID-19 syndrome. Myalgias, fatigue and dyspnoea were common symptoms. Patients with hypothyroidism and hypoxia during acute illness were at higher risk of long COVID.

Background & objectives: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS and OPS) collection is widely accepted as the preferred method for obtaining respiratory samples. However, it has certain disadvantages which may be overcome by gargling. The primary objective of this study was to assess agreement between gargle lavage and swab as an appropriate respiratory sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The secondary objective was to assess the patient acceptability of the two sampling methods. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study done at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, on 50 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Paired swab (NPS and OPS) and gargle samples were taken within 72 h of their diagnosis. Samples were processed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Post-sample collection, a 10-point scale was administered to assess the level of discomfort with either of the collection methods. Results: All gargle samples were positive and comparable to their corresponding swab samples irrespective of the symptoms and duration of illness. The cycle threshold (C t ) values for gargle samples were slightly higher but comparable to those of swabs. Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Majority (72%) of the patients reported moderate-to-severe discomfort with swab collection in comparison to 24 per cent reporting only mild discomfort with gargle collection. Interpretation & conclusions: Our preliminary results show that the gargle lavage may be a viable alternative to swabs for sample collection for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Adoption of gargle lavage for sample collection will have a significant impact as it will enable easy self-collection, relieve healthcare workers and also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing the need for swabs and personal protective equipment.

Background & objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has so far affected over 41 million people globally. The limited supply of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) kits and reagents has made meeting the rising demand for increased testing incompetent, worldwide. A highly sensitive and specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is the need of the hour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based test (index test) compared with a clinical reference standard (rRT-PCR). Methods: A cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Paired samples were taken for RDT and rRT-PCR (reference standard) from consecutive participants screened for COVID-19 to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the duration of illness and cycle threshold values. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement between the two tests. Results: Of the 330 participants, 77 were rRT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sixty four of these patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 81.8 and 99.6 per cent, respectively. The sensitivity of RDT was higher (85.9%) in participants with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Interpretation & conclusions: With an excellent specificity and moderate sensitivity, this RDT may be used to rule in COVID-19 in patients with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Large-scale testing based on this RDT across the country would result in quick detection, isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Background & objectives: In the present scenario, the most common sample for diagnosis of COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is nasal and throat swab (NTS). Other sampling options such as gargle lavage have found limited application in clinical use mostly because of unavailability of an appropriate gargling liquid. This study was conducted to assess the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in normal saline at 4°C that can serve as a gargling liquid as well as a transport medium. The study also looked at the agreement between NTS and gargle lavage/saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In 29 consecutive real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) positive COVID-19 patients, paired NTS, gargle and saliva samples were taken. Samples were processed by rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. To assess the SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability in normal saline, gargle lavage specimens were divided into two aliquots; one subset of the specimen was run within 4-6 h along with the routine samples (NTS and saliva) and the other subset was stored at 4°C and processed after 24-30 h. Agreement between cycle threshold (Ct) values from both the runs was compared using Bland–Altman (BA) analysis. Results: The positivity rates of rRT-PCR in NTS, saliva and gargle lavage samples were 82.7 (24/29), 79.3 (23/29) and 86.2 per cent (25/29), respectively. BA plot showed a good agreement between the Ct values of fresh and stored gargle samples, stipulating that there were no significant differences in the approximate viral load levels between the fresh and stored gargle lavage samples (bias: E gene −0.64, N gene −0.51, ORF gene −0.19). Interpretation & conclusions: Our study results show stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the gargle samples collected using normal saline up to 24-30 h. Gargle lavage and saliva specimen collection are cost-effective and acceptable methods of sampling for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR. These simplified, inexpensive and acceptable methods of specimen collection would reduce the cost and workload on healthcare workers for sample collection.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had generated considerable interest for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prophylaxis. We conducted a prospective observational study at a tertiary care hospital in India, with dedicated COVID-19 care facilities. Objectives: Primary objective was incidence of adverse effects, secondary objective being efficacy in preventing COVID-19. Methods: Healthcare workers were recruited and grouped based on voluntary HCQ prophylaxis as per national guidelines. Side effects in HCQ group were graded in accordance with national cancer institute-common terminology criteria for adverse events (NCI-CTCAE) version 5.0. At 3–7-week follow-up, groups were compared for COVID-19 exposure, symptoms development and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR results. Results: Among 358 participants recruited, 216 (60.3%) were males and mean age was 31.2 ± 6.6 years. Chemoprophylaxis was initiated by 258 (72%) participants. After loading dose, 7 (2.7%) reported grade 2 and 1 (0.4%) grade 3 adverse effects. Discontinuation of HCQ due to side effects was reported in 11 (4.3%) participants. Electrocardiogram was done by 50 (19.4%) participants on HCQ; no abnormalities were noted. A total of 106 (41%) among those taking and 63 (63%) among those not taking HCQ were tested for SARS-CoV-2 due to influenza-like illness or significant exposure. Among all participants, 25 (6.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3–9.6) developed COVID-19 during the study period. In the group taking HCQ, 10 (3.9%) tested positive compared to 15 (15%) in the group not taking HCQ (P < 0.001). Odds ratio with HCQ intake was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13–0.83, P = 0.01) and the number needed to treat was 12. Conclusion: HCQ is safe at the recommended dose for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19.