Objectives Data from point prevalence surveys (PPSs) in India are scarce. Conducting PPSs is especially challenging in the absence of electronic medical records, a lack of dedicated resources and a high patient load in resource-poor settings. This multicentre survey was conducted to provide background data for planning and strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programmes across the country. Methods This inpatient PPS was conducted over 2 weeks in May 2019 simultaneously across five study centres in India. Data about patient characteristics, indications for antimicrobials use and details of each antimicrobial prescribed including supportive investigation reports were collected in predesigned forms. Results A total of 3473 admitted patients in wards and ICUs were covered across five study centres. Of these, 1747 (50.3%) patients were on antimicrobials, with 46.9% patients being on two or more antimicrobials. Out of the total antimicrobials prescribed, 40.2% of the antimicrobials were prescribed for community-acquired infection requiring hospitalization followed by surgical prophylaxis (32.6%). Third-generation cephalosporins and drugs from the ‘Watch’ category were prescribed most commonly. Only 22.8% of the antimicrobials were based on microbiology reports. Conclusions The survey demonstrated a high use of antimicrobials in admitted patients with a considerable proportion of drugs from the ‘Watch’ category. The targets for interventions that emerged from the survey were: improving surgical prophylaxis, decreasing double anaerobic cover, initiating culture of sending cultures and de-escalation with targeted therapy.

A COVID-19 patient often presents with multiple comorbidities and is associated with adverse outcomes. A comprehensive assessment of the prevalence of comorbidities in patients with COVID-19 is essential. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of comorbidities, severity and mortality with regard to geographic region, age, gender and smoking status in patients with COVID-19. A systematic review and multistage meta-analyses were reported using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and EMBASE were searched from January 2020 to October 2022. Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case series studies, and case–control studies on comorbidities reporting among the COVID-19 populations that were published in English were included. The pooled prevalence of various medical conditions in COVID-19 patients was calculated based on regional population size weights. Stratified analyses were performed to understand the variations in the medical conditions based on age, gender, and geographic region. A total of 190 studies comprising 105 million COVID-19 patients were included. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA software, version 16 MP (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Meta-analysis of proportion was performed to obtain pooled values of the prevalence of medical comorbidities: hypertension (39%, 95% CI 36–42, n = 170 studies), obesity (27%, 95% CI 25–30%, n = 169 studies), diabetes (27%, 95% CI 25–30%, n = 175), and asthma (8%, 95% CI 7–9%, n = 112). Moreover, the prevalence of hospitalization was 35% (95% CI 29–41%, n = 61), intensive care admissions 17% (95% CI 14–21, n = 106), and mortality 18% (95% CI 16–21%, n = 145). The prevalence of hypertension was highest in Europe at 44% (95% CI 39–47%, n = 68), obesity and diabetes at 30% (95% CI, 26–34, n = 79) and 27% (95%CI, 24–30, n = 80) in North America, and asthma in Europe at 9% (95% CI 8–11, n = 41). Obesity was high among the ≥ 50 years (30%, n = 112) age group, diabetes among Men (26%, n = 124) and observational studies reported higher mortality than case–control studies (19% vs. 14%). Random effects meta-regression found a significant association between age and diabetes (p < 0.001), hypertension (p < 0.001), asthma (p < 0.05), ICU admission (p < 0.05) and mortality (p < 0.001). Overall, a higher global prevalence of hypertension (39%) and a lower prevalence of asthma (8%), and 18% of mortality were found in patients with COVID-19. Hence, geographical regions with respective chronic medical comorbidities should accelerate regular booster dose vaccination, preferably to those patients with chronic comorbidities, to prevent and lower the severity and mortality of COVID-19 disease with novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC).

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

No abstract