Objectives. The study is aimed at evaluating knowledge, attitude, and barriers to telemedicine among the general population in Egypt. Methods. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional design was carried out among the general Egyptian population. A convenience sampling method was used to approach the eligible participants from University Teaching Hospitals of eight governorates from May to July 2020. Results. A total of 686 participants filled the questionnaire (49.4% were males, mean age 36.7 ± 11.2 years old). Half of the participants stated that they previously used a telemedicine tool, mainly to follow up laboratory results (67.3%). Video or phone calls (39.3%) and mobile applications (23.7%) were the most commonly recognized telemedicine tools by the participants. The included participants exhibited a high level of knowledge and attitude towards telemedicine. On the other hand, 21.9% stated that telemedicine services could jeopardize patient privacy. 32.8% reported that telemedicine service could lead to disclosing medical information to people who are not authorized to do so. Almost half of the participants agreed to strongly agreed that telemedicine service could increase medical errors. 60.80% of the participants said that they are more likely to prefer telemedicine than traditional ways. However, 13.70% stated that telemedicine is more likely to be challenging to use. Conclusion. The Egyptian population has high knowledge about the applications of telemedicine. In addition, the vast majority of Egyptians appear to perceive the benefits of telemedicine positively and are willing to use it. However, some barriers that have been found must be taken into consideration to adopt telemedicine successfully, especially for people who are old, are low educated, and live in remote areas. Future studies should address the utility of telemedicine in improving the quality of healthcare and patient’s health outcome and quality of life.

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) are still at higher risk of acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections than the general population. Identifying risk factors associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections is of paramount importance to protect HCWs and the non-infected patients attending different healthcare facilities. Purpose To recognize the predictors for severity of SARS-CoV2 infection among HCWs working in either COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 healthcare settings. Also, to assess compliance of HCW to standard precautions of infection control and explore the possible risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, from different Egyptian governorates. They were asked to fill in a web-based self-reporting questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of participants, compliance of HCWs to standard precautions of infection control and COVID-19 presentation. Results Our study enrolled 204 HCWs (52.3% physicians). Infection of SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in 61.3% by RT- PCR; 35.8% were admitted to hospital, and of these, 3.9% were admitted to the intensive care unit. While 30.4% had mild disease, 48.5% had moderate disease, 17.2% had severe disease and 3.9% had critical disease. Regression analysis for variables predicting COVID-19 severity among study healthcare workers showed that associated chronic diseases and management at home were the main independent variables predicting severity of their SARS-COV-2 infection, while the variables age, sex, residence, occupation or drug history of immunosuppressives had no role in severity prediction. Conclusion Associated chronic diseases and management at home were the main independent variables predicting severity of SARS-COV-2 infection among HCWs. So, HCWs with chronic diseases should not work in COVID-19 designated hospitals, and there should be a screening strategy for their infection with SARS-COV-2. HCWs must not be negligent in adhering to strict precautions of infection control. HCWs infected with SARS-COV-2 must be managed in hospital not at home.

We confirmed high HBV reactivation risk in HBsAg-positive patients undergoing DAAs, with only a minority developing clinically important hepatitis. The risk is negligible for HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients.

No abstract

Background & Aims: In healthcare settings with limited resources, it is crucial to make a plan to prioritize hospital admission for patients affected by COVID-19. So, we tried to develop a novel approach for triaging COVID-19 patients and deciding the priority for hospital admission using Lung Ultrasound. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of lung ultrasound in triaging suspected COVID-19 patients and assessment of the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia and its comparison with CT chest as the gold standard. Method: This was a multicenter cross-sectional study enrolled on 243 COVID-19 confirmed patients presented to the emergency department in three major University hospitals in Egypt. Lung ultrasound was done by an experienced emergency physician or chest physician according to the local protocol of each hospital. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected from each patient. Each patient was subjected to CT chest and lung ultrasound. Results: A total of 243 confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled in this study, with a mean age of 46.7+10.4 years. Ground glass opacity (GGO), subpleural consolidation, trans-lobar consolidation, and crazy paving were reported in chest CT scans of 54.3%, 15.2%, 11.1%, and 8.6% of patients, respectively. B-line artifacts were found in 81.1% of COVID-19 patients, which was of confluent pattern in 18.9% of patients. The lung ultrasound findings of 197 patients (81.1%) were completely coincident with those of CT with a Kappa agreement value of 0.77, and this offered a diagnostic sensitivity of 74 %, a diagnostic specificity of 97.9 %, positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.2% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.6 % for lung ultrasound in triaging COVID-19 patients. Adding O2 saturation to the findings of lung imaging, the accuracy of evaluation of lung ultrasound to differentiate between severe and non-severe lung diseases showed that ultrasound had 100% sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion: Lung Ultrasound with Oxygen saturation is a very efficient tool for decision-making to prioritize hospital admission for patients affected by COVID-19 in healthcare settings with limited resources.

Background: Non-invasive tests (NITs), such as Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) and the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), developed using classical statistical methods, are increasingly used for determining liver fibrosis stages and recommended in treatment guidelines replacing the liver biopsy.

Background: Coronavirus disease-19 [COVID-19] is a pandemic spreading all over the world. The novel corona virus has a specific tropism for the low respiratory airways causing viral pneumonia. Early diagnosis of suspicious COVID-19 pneumonia represents a pillar for immediate management. Computed tomography [CT] scan is considered the gold-standard screening tool, but it has several limitations. A chest ultrasound could play a role in COVID-19. Aim of the work: To evaluate the role of lung ultrasound [LUS] in diagnosis of suspicious COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients and Methods: Sixty patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia were included. They were initially evaluated in triage and initial diagnosis [Al-Azhar University Hospital; Damietta] and followed up by the surveillance and infection control team till the final diagnosis or discharge from isolation hospitals. All were evaluated clinically, by imaging modalities [LUS, chest computed tomography [CT]] and diagnosis confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. Data of LUS and chest CT compared to results of PCR. Results: LUS had sensitivity of 88.2%, specificity of 11.5%, PPV of 56.6%, NPV of 42.8% and overall diagnostic accuracy of 55.0%. on the other side, CT scan had 94.1%, 3.85, 56.14%, 33.33% and 57.0% for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and overall diagnostic accuracy, successively. Results of LUS are slightly lower than CT. Conclusion: US is a useful screening and monitoring tool in suspected COVID-19. It is feasible, portable with an accepted rate of sensitivity. However, it is advisable to be used as an integrated diagnostic tool.

The combined serum AFP and GPC3 significantly increased the sensitivity of HCC diagnosis. Although GPC3 is better than AFP in diagnosis of HCC, it still lacks the 100% sensitivity and specificity because some patients have negative or normal level of GPC3 (below the cutoff point 1.5 ng/ml) despite being diagnosed by triphasic CT.