The COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant challenge to wellbeing for people around the world. Here, we examine which individual and societal factors can predict the extent to which individuals suffer or thrive during the COVID-19 outbreak, with survey data collected from 26,684 participants in 51 countries from 17 April to 15 May 2020. We show that wellbeing is linked to an individual’s recent experiences of specific momentary positive and negative emotions, including love, calm, determination, and loneliness. Higher socioeconomic status was associated with better wellbeing. The present study provides a rich map of emotional experiences and wellbeing around the world during the COVID-19 outbreak, and points to calm, connection, and control as central to our wellbeing at this time of collective crisis.

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a cytokine storm-blocking agent for COVID-19 due to its efficacy as an anti-inflammatory drug. The findings of the studies were contentious on the role of colchicine in preventing deterioration in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19-hospitalized patients. Design: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out at three major isolation hospitals in Alexandria (Egypt), covering multiple centers. In addition, a systematic review was conducted by searching six different databases for published studies on the utilization of colchicine in patients with COVID-19 until March 2023. The primary outcome measure was to determine whether colchicine could decrease the number of days that the patient needed supplemental oxygen. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate whether colchicine could reduce the number of hospitalization days and mortality rate in these patients. Results: Out of 515 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 411 were included in the survival analysis. After adjusting for the patients’ characteristics, patients not receiving colchicine had a shorter length of stay (median: 7.0 vs. 6.0 days) and fewer days of supplemental oxygen treatment (median: 6.0 vs. 5.0 days), p < 0.05, but there was no significant difference in mortality rate. In a subgroup analysis based on oxygen equipment at admission, patients admitted on nasal cannula/face masks who did not receive colchicine had a shorter duration on oxygen supply than those who did [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.76 (CI 0.59–0.97)]. Using cox-regression analysis, clarithromycin compared to azithromycin in colchicine-treated patients was associated with a higher risk of longer duration on oxygen supply [HR = 1.77 (CI 1.04–2.99)]. Furthermore, we summarized 36 published colchicine studies, including 114,878 COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: COVID-19-hospitalized patients who were given colchicine had poorer outcomes in terms of the duration of supplemental oxygen use and the length of their hospital stay. Therefore, based on these findings, the use of colchicine is not recommended for COVID-19-hospitalized adults.

Background: Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral approved as promising medicine worldwide for deadly pandemic COVID-19 disease. The debate of its efficacy is interesting between different studies with consideration of several factors. We planned this study to evaluate a huge clinical outcome (primary composite outcome) of mortality rate, need for MV, and escalation of care among Remdesivir (RDV) and non-Remdesivir (NoRDV)groups.Methods: Patients with a PCR - confirmed diagnosis of moderate and severe COVID-19 were observed retrospectively as two comparative groups, before and after including remdesivir in the treatment protocol, from August 2020 to February 2021.Result: From 509 hospitalized patients; 35% received Remdesivir among them 64% were severe patients. Median age, 59 years, was equal in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding gender, baseline characteristics, and co-morbidities. Unlike, the median hospital length of stay was lower among the RDV group (8 days) than the NoRDV (9 days), P= 0.004.The composite outcome occurred in 17.7% in RDV and 22.2% in NoRDV but the difference was statistically insignificant (p-value 0.289). Adjusted logistic regression showed a non-significant lower association of the composite outcome with RDV use (OR 0.623, 95CI% 0.37-1.02), and a significant reduction occurred in patients <60 years old (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.17 – 0.83). However, survival analysis for mortality, MV, and transfer to a higher level revealed insignificant differences in the median time between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that RDV utilization had a non-significant effect on the risk of all three outcomes across different groups. Conclusion: Despite controlling all patient characteristics, treatment with RDV did not show any improved impact on patient outcomes over other antivirals and standard care. There is a pressing need for further studies to explore and evaluate new therapeutic approaches or combinations.