The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with its early origin from Wuhan city in China has evolved into a global pandemic. Maximal precautionary measures and resources have been put forward by most nations in war footing to mitigate transmission and decrease fatality rates. This article was aimed to review the evidence on clinical management and to deal with the identification of high-risk groups, warning signs, appropriate investigations, proper sample collection for confirmation, general and specific treatment measures, strategies as well as infection control in the healthcare settings. Advanced age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer have been found to be the risk factors for severe disease. Fever lasting for >five days with tachypnoea, tachycardia or hypotension are indications for urgent attention and hospitalization in a patient with suspected COVID-19. At present, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from the upper respiratory tract samples is the diagnostic test of choice. While many drugs have shown in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there are insufficient clinical data to promote or dissuade their usage. Among the currently available drugs, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir may be considered for patients with severe COVID-19 infection, awaiting further clinical trials. Stringent droplet and contact precautions will protect healthcare workers against most clinical exposures to COVID-19.
Diagnosis of scrub typhus, caused by the bacterium Orientia tsutsugamushi, is challenging because of the overlap of its non-specific symptoms with other infections coupled with the lack of sufficient data on the performance of diagnostic tests. Early diagnosis of scrub typhus is crucial to improve outcomes and this study evaluates the diagnostic performance of various tests. The present study aims at assessing the accuracy of various rapid diagnostic tests, serologic tests, and nucleic acid amplification methods on well-characterized patient samples. Adult patients with acute febrile illness and manifestations suggestive of scrub typhus confirmed by positive PCR in the blood, eschar or tissue were characterized as cases. Patients with acute febrile illness and a confirmed alternate etiology such as culture-confirmed typhoid, smear/PCR positive for malaria, PCR/NS1 antigen positive for dengue, PCR positive for influenza, PCR/MAT positive for leptospirosis, PCR positive for spotted fever were characterized as controls with other infections. The healthy controls consisted of subjects from the same geographic region. We performed the following tests on blood samples for scrub typhus and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value: (1) Quantitative real time PCR using 47kDa gene (qPCR); (2) Conventional PCR using 56kDa gene (cPCR); (3) Loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay (LAMP assay); (4) Immunofluorescence assay (IFA); (5) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); (6) Weil-Felix test(WF test); and (7) Immunochromatographic Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT).Among the 316 participants, 158 had confirmed scrub typhus (cases) and 158 were controls. ELISA and RDT detecting Orientia tsutsugamushi specific IgM antibodies had excellent discriminative potential with sensitivities and specificities of 92%, 94% and 92%, 92% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of IFA were found to be 95% and 74% respectively. IgM serology had a false positivity rate of 8% with other acute febrile illnesses such as dengue, leptospirosis and spotted fever due to the nonspecific binding of the pentavalent IgM. LAMP assay had 91.7% sensitivity and 77.2% specificity while qPCR provided excellent sensitivity (97%) and perfect specificity. In conclusion, ELISA and RDT detecting Orientia tsutsugamushi specific IgM antibodies have excellent sensitivity and specificity while the accuracy of IFA is suboptimal for the diagnosis of scrub typhus. Given its perfect specificity and superior sensitivity, qPCR is preferred for diagnostic confirmation in reference laboratories particularly for diagnosis of early disease with less than 7 days duration. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of all currently available diagnostic tests for scrub typhus.
Palonosetron (PG) is a newer, safe, and effective long-acting 5-HT3 antagonist commonly used in adults, but data in children are limited. A randomized controlled trial was carried out among children with cancer during their first cycle of moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy to receive either PG or ondansetron (OG) with the aim of comparing their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. In total, 200 children (mean age, 8 y, male:female=1.8:1) were recruited, 100 in each arm. Complete response, defined as no vomiting, in acute (<24 h), delayed (24 to 120 h), and overall phases (0 to 120 h) was observed in 88%, 88%, and 81% of cases, respectively, for PG versus 84%, 79%, and 72%, respectively, for OG (P=0.42, 0.09 and 0.21, respectively). Complete protection rates, defined as no nausea and vomiting in children above 6 years of age, in acute, delayed, and overall phases were 84%, 81%, and 73%, respectively, for PG versus 79%, 67%, and 60%, respectively, for OG (P=0.44, 0.06 and 0.10, respectively). Overall, the efficacy and safety of PG in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was comparable with OG, but PG was a more cost-effective and suitable choice for busy centers in resource-limited countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.