Objectives To evaluate lipid profiles in subjects with preeclampsia. To determine if there is any change in lipid profiles in subject of preeclampsia as compared to normal antenatal females, non-pregnant females and post partum females. Methods Study was carried out on pregnant women and non pregnant women attending or admitted in the Obstet-

Variation in PADR across the studies can be explained by difference in study populations and data collection methods. Extrapolation of preventable reactions should be carried out considering all these factors with caution.

ADR is an important cause of mortality. Strategies targeting the safer use of warfarin, aspirin, RAS inhibitors and digoxin could reduce the large number of fatal ADRcases.

Objective:To review the literature and summarize the available evidence about the relationship of fibroids with infertility and to review the role of laparoscopic myomectomy in infertility.Materials and Methods:Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles published between 1980 and 2010.Results:Fertility outcomes are decreased in women with submucosal fibroids, and myomectomy is of value. Subserosal fibroids do not affect fertility outcomes, and removal may not confer benefit. Intramural fibroids appear to decrease fertility, but the results of therapy are unclear. Although pregnancy rates for women with leiomyomata, managed endoscopically, are similar to those after laparotomy, there is a risk of uterine rupture. The risk is essentially unknown. Finally, the risk of recurrence seems higher after laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy.Conclusions:Laparoscopic myomectomy, when performed by an experienced surgeon, can be considered a safe technique, with an extremely low failure rate and good results in terms of the outcome of pregnancy.

No abstract

Hydroxychloroquine has been promoted for its use in treatment of COVID-19 patients based on in-vitro evidences. We searched the databases to include randomized and observational studies evaluating the effect of Hydroxychloroquine on mortality in COVID-19 patients. The outcome was summarized as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We used the inversevariance method with a random effect model and assessed the heterogeneity using I 2 test. We used ROBINS-I tool to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We performed the meta-analysis using 'Review manager software version 5.3'. We identified 6 observationalstudies satisfying the selection criteria. In all studies, Hydroxychloroquine was given as add on to the standard care and effect was compared with the standard care alone. A pooled analysis observed 251 deaths in 1331 participants of the Hydroxychloroquine arm and 363 deaths in 1577 participants of the control arm. There was no difference in odds of mortality events amongst Hydroxychloroquine and supportive care arm [1.25 (95% CI: 0.65, 2.38); I 2 = 80%]. A similar trend was observed with moderate risk of bias studies [0.95 (95% CI: 0.44, 2.06); I 2 = 85%]. The odds of mortality were significantly higher in patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin than supportive care alone [2.34 (95% CI: 1.63, 3.34); I 2 = 0%]. A pooled analysis of recently published studies suggests no additional benefit for reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients when Hydroxychloroquine is given as add-on to the standard care.

No abstract

Background Lopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated. Methods The databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 test. Results Out of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions: supportive care (n = 4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n = 2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n = 1), lopinavir-ritonavir + novaferon (n = 1) and lopinavir-ritonavir + interferon beta 1b + ribavirin (n = 1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD: 0.00 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.02), I 2 = 0], virological cure [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.31), I 2 = 0%], radiological improvement [RR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.17, 38.90), I 2 = 75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR: 2.96 (95% CI: 1.42-6.18); I 2 = 0%]. Conclusion There is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.