Introduction The coronavirus pandemic has affected more than 20 million people so far. Elevated cytokines and suppressed immune responses have been hypothesized to set off a cytokine storm, contributing to ARDS, multiple‐organ failure and, in the most severe cases, death. We aimed to quantify the differences in the circulating levels of major inflammatory and immunological markers between severe and nonsevere COVID‐19 patients. Methods Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and preprint servers. Risk of bias was assessed for each study, using appropriate checklists. All studies were described qualitatively and a subset was included in the meta‐analysis, using forest plots. Results Based on 23 studies, mean cytokine levels were significantly higher (IL‐6: MD, 19.55 pg/mL; CI, 14.80, 24.30; IL‐8: MD, 19.18 pg/mL; CI, 2.94, 35.43; IL‐10: MD, 3.66 pg/mL; CI, 2.41, 4.92; IL‐2R: MD, 521.36 U/mL; CI, 87.15, 955.57; and TNF‐alpha: MD, 1.11 pg/mL; CI, 0.07, 2.15) and T‐lymphocyte levels were significantly lower (CD4+ T cells: MD, −165.28 cells/µL; CI, −207.58, −122.97; CD8+ T cells: MD, −106.51 cells/µL; CI, −128.59, −84.43) among severe cases as compared to nonsevere ones. There was heterogeneity across studies due to small sample sizes and nonuniformity in outcome assessment and varied definitions of disease severity. The overall quality of studies was sub‐optimal. Conclusion Severe COVID‐19 is characterized by significantly increased levels of pro‐inflammatory cytokines and reduced T lymphocytes. Well‐designed and adequately powered prospective studies are needed to amplify the current evidence and provide definitive answers to dilemmas regarding timing and type of anti‐COVID‐19 therapy particularly in severe patients.

BackgroundAdults in urban areas spend almost 77% of their waking time being inactive at workplaces, which leaves little time for physical activity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize evidence for the effect of workplace physical activity interventions on the cardio-metabolic health markers (body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipids and blood glucose) among working adults.MethodsAll experimental studies up to March 2018, reporting cardio-metabolic worksite intervention outcomes among adult employees were identified from PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess bias in studies. All studies were assessed qualitatively and meta-analysis was done where possible. Forest plots were generated for pooled estimates of each study outcome.ResultsA total of 33 studies met the eligibility criteria and 24 were included in the meta-analysis. Multi-component workplace interventions significantly reduced body weight (16 studies; mean diff: − 2.61 kg, 95% CI: − 3.89 to − 1.33) BMI (19 studies, mean diff: − 0.42 kg/m2, 95% CI: − 0.69 to − 0.15) and waist circumference (13 studies; mean diff: − 1.92 cm, 95% CI: − 3.25 to − 0.60). Reduction in blood pressure, lipids and blood glucose was not statistically significant.ConclusionsWorkplace interventions significantly reduced body weight, BMI and waist circumference. Non-significant results for biochemical markers could be due to them being secondary outcomes in most studies. Intervention acceptability and adherence, follow-up duration and exploring non-RCT designs are factors that need attention in future research.Prospero registration number: CRD42018094436.

Pharmacovigilance is a practice aimed to monitor drug safety in real life conditions and capture adverse drug events during the post marketing phase of drug's life cycle. But under reporting of adverse reactions is a major cause of concern and a threat to the pharmacovigilance systems. The present article looks into the major obstacles affecting the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in India and the possible solutions. As per available scientific literature, the major impediments to ADR reporting are inadequate knowledge and awareness among health professionals, clinicians' perceptions towards reporting, problems with establishing reporting systems in hospitals and insufficient training to recognize ADRs. Measures to improve the situation include greater involvement of nurses, pharmacists as well as consumers in the reporting of ADRs, making the process simpler and faster through electronic means, introducing educational interventions and training programs for health care providers and spreading awareness about the reporting system amongst caregivers and receivers alike. Providing a momentum to the pharmacovigilance system and ensuring a robust reporting process is a challenge but proper planning, feasible solutions and focussed efforts can help bring about the change ensuring patient safety - the ultimate goal of pharmacovigilance.