Background & objectives: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China and rapidly spread globally including India. The characteristic clinical observations and outcomes of this disease (COVID-19) have been reported from different countries. The present study was aimed to describe the clinico-demographic characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of a group of COVID-19 patients in north India. Methods: This was a prospective, single-centre collection of data regarding epidemiological, demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters, management and outcome of COVID-19 patients admitted in a tertiary care facility in north India. Patient outcomes were recorded as death, discharge and still admitted. Results: Data of 144 patients with COVID-19 were recorded and analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 40.1±13.1 yr, with 93.1 per cent males, and included 10 (6.9%) foreign nationals. Domestic travel to or from affected States (77.1%) and close contact with COVID-19 patients in congregations (82.6%) constituted the most commonly documented exposure. Nine (6.3%) patients were smokers, with a median smoking index of 200. Comorbidities were present in 23 (15.9%) patients, of which diabetes mellitus (n=16; 11.1%) was the most common. A significant proportion of patients had no symptoms (n=64; 44.4%); among the symptomatic, cough (34.7%) was the most common symptom followed by fever (17.4%) and nasal symptoms (2.15%). Majority of the patients were managed with supportive treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin given on a case-to-case basis. Only five (3.5%) patients required oxygen supplementation, four (2.8%) patients had severe disease requiring intensive care, one required mechanical ventilation and mortality occurred in two (1.4%) patients. The time to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity was 16-18 days. Interpretation & conclusions: In this single-centre study of 144 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in north India, the characteristic findings included younger age, high proportion of asymptomatic patients, long time to PCR negativity and low need for intensive care unit care.

Genitourinary tuberculosis is common in developing countries. Diagnosis is often delayed because of late presentation and many patients present with cicatrization sequelae. A combination of antitubercular drug therapy and judicious surgery achieves satisfactory results in the majority of cases. With improved antitubercular drug therapy and experience with the use of bowel segments in the urinary tract, more reconstructive procedures are being performed with satisfactory outcomes. In patients who undergo reconstructive procedures, a rigorous and prolonged followup is necessary.

Background Oral nifedipine is recommended along with labetalol and hydralazine for treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy by most authorities. Although nifedipine is cheap and easily administered, the usage pattern among health care providers suggests a strong preference for labetalol despite lack of evidence for the same.Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine for treatment of severe hypertension of pregnancy compared with intravenous labetalol. Selection criteria We included all RCTs that compared intravenous labetalol with oral nifedipine for treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy, addressing relevant efficacy and safety outcomes.Data collection and analysis Eligible studies were reviewed, and data were extracted onto a standard form. We used Cochrane review manager software for quantitative analysis. Data were analysed using a fixed effect model. Main resultsThe pooled analysis of seven trials (four from developing countries) consisting of 363 woman-infant pairs showed that oral nifedipine was associated with less risk of persistent hypertension (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.96) and reported maternal side effects (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.94). However, on sensitivity analysis the outcome 'persistent hypertension' was no longer significant. Other outcomes did not reach statistical significance.Conclusion Oral nifedipine is as efficacious and safe as intravenous labetalol and may have an edge in low resource settings.Keywords Labetalol, meta-analysis nifedipine, severe hypertension during pregnancy, severe pre-eclampsia.Tweetable abstract Although studies to date are few in number and small, nifedipine shows promise for severe hypertension in pregnancy.

Objectives: The availability of routine care for patients with cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become challenging, and the use of telemedicine can be promising in this area. The objective of the study is to evaluate the feasibility of telemedicine-based palliative interventions in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care centre with 547 follow-up patients who used palliative medicine teleconsultation services. The following data were retrieved from the records: Patient’s reason for the call, the main barriers to a hospital visit, the assistance given to them by the physician on the call and the patients’ satisfaction with the service on a 4-point scale. The data were analysed using percentages for categorical variables and mean/standard deviation for quantitative variables. Results: Out of the 547 patients, 462 (84.46%) utilised voice calling service, and the major reason for not visiting the hospital were cited to be fear of contracting COVID-19 (37.3%), inability to attend due to health constraints (7.13%) and issues with transportation (48.8%). The majority of the calls (63.62%) calls were regarding uncontrolled symptoms of the primary diseases. A total of 402 (73.49%) patients were very satisfied, and a total of 399 (72.94%) decided to continue to use this medium in the future as well. Conclusion: Telemedicine is a good modality for the assessment of chronic pain and providing symptomatic supportive care in patients with cancer in the COIVD-19 pandemic.

Background and Aims: With the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown, and fear from contagion, the advantages of telemedicine are clearly outweighing the setbacks by minimizing the need for individuals to visit health-care facilities. Our study aims to assess how palliative medicine physicians could follow up on cancer patients and barriers they faced, discuss their results, and evaluate their treatment response with the help of telemedicine. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of the smartphone-based telemedicine service at our palliative care (PC) unit from March 25, 2020, to May 13, 2020. We recorded the patient's reason for call, main barriers to a hospital visit, and the assistance given to them by the physician on call. Each caller was asked to measure his/her satisfaction with the service on a 4-point scale. Results: Out of 314 patients, 143 (45.54%) belonged to Delhi and 171 (54.46%) belonged to other states. 157 patients sought help for symptom management; 86 patients needed to restock their opioid medications. Seventy-one patients required information regarding their oncological treatments requiring consultation from other departments. Titration of oral opioids and medication prescription ( n = 129), contact details of other PC units at their native state for opioid procurement ( n = 55), and attachment to our community-based PC service ( n = 22) were main modes of management. Fifty-six patients were very satisfied and 152 patients were satisfied with the service. Conclusion: Telemedicine is the future of health-care delivery systems. In PC, we deal with immunocompromised debilitated cancer patients and telemedicine is immensely helpful for us to provide holistic integrated care to these patients who are unable to visit hospitals regularly.

Background Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has recently emerged as a viable management option for peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM). CRS and HIPEC is a complex, multidisciplinary and resource-intensive surgical procedure. It has a steep learning curve and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The expertise is mostly limited to few dedicated high-volume centers located in developed countries. We present a single institutional experience of 232 cases of CRS and HIPEC performed at a tertiary care cancer center in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Methods A multidisciplinary PSM program was initiated in 2015 at a high-volume public-sector tertiary care cancer center in North India catering largely to patients belonging to low- and middle-income groups. Perioperative protocols were developed, and a prospective structured database was created to capture data. All patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC between January 2015 and December 2020 were identified, and the data was retrospectively analyzed for clinical spectrum, surgical details, and perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results Two hundred and thirty-two patients underwent CRS and HIPEC during the study period. Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (56.5%) was the most common malignancy treated, followed by pseudomyxoma peritonei (18.5%), colorectal carcinoma (13.4%), and malignant mesothelioma (5.6%). Optimal CRS could be achieved in 94.4% of patients. Cisplatin and mitomycin were the most common drugs used for HIPEC. A total of 28.0% of patients had morbidity including deep vein thrombosis, subacute intestinal obstruction, sepsis, burst abdomen, lymphocele, urinoma, acute renal failure, and enterocutaneous fistula. The overall treatment-related mortality was 3.5%. Conclusions Results of the current study indicate that it is feasible to establish a successful CRS and HIPEC program for PSM in government-funded hospitals in LMIC facing resource constraints. The most common indication for CRS and HIPEC were carcinoma of the ovary followed by pseudomyxoma peritonei and colorectal carcinoma. Overall morbidity and mortality in the current series are comparable to global standards, reported from high-income countries. A protocol-based multidisciplinary team approach, optimal patient selection, and surgical expertise can help achieve optimal outcomes in government-funded hospitals in LMIC.

Introduction: Till date, no drug has shown definite benefit in non-severe COVID-19. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug which has in-vitro efficacy in reducing coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) load in severe disease. Objectives: To determine if a single oral administration of Ivermectin to patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 is effective in converting SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR to negative result and in reducing viral load.Methods: In this double-blind trial, patients were randomized to elixir formulation of Ivermectin in 24 mg, 12 mg or placebo in 1:1:1 ratio. The co-primary outcomes were conversion of RT-PCR to negative result and the decline of viral load at day 5 of enrolment and were assessed in patients with positive RT-PCR at enrolment (modified intention-to-treat population). Safety outcomes included total and serious adverse events and were assessed in all patients who received the trial drug (intention-to-treat population). Results: Among 157 patients randomized, 125 patients were included in mITT analysis. Forty patients each were assigned to Ivermectin 24 mg and 12 mg, and 45 patients to placebo. The RT-PCR negativity at day 5 was higher in the two Ivermectin arms but failed to attain statistical significance (Ivermectin 24 mg, 47.5%; 12 mg, 35.0%; and placebo, 31.1%; p= 0.30). The decline of viral load at day 5 was similar in the three arms. No serious adverse events were encountered.Conclusion: In patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, a single administration of Ivermectin elixir (either 24 mg or 12 mg) demonstrated a trend towards higher proportion of RT-PCR negativity at day 5 of enrolment. The protocol was registered in the Clinical Trial Registry – India (CTRI) vide ref No CTRI/2020/06/026001.

No abstract