Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is an ongoing pandemic, which affected around 45 million confirmed cases of COVID‐19, including more than 6 million deaths. However, on November 24, 2021, the World Health Organization announced a new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant designated as the B.1.1.529, a variant of concern (VOC), and the variant has been named as “Omicron.” Available preliminary evidence suggests that, as compared with previous VOCs, it has an increased risk of infectivity. Studies have shown that protection from various vaccines effectiveness against hospitalization and death from severe COVID‐19 disease is decreasing slowly after a two‐dose schedule of COVID‐19 vaccines. In response to experiencing a new COVID‐19 variant and ongoing resurgence of cases, the importance of COVID‐19 vaccine booster dose and durability of the effect of the third dose of vaccine against COVID‐19 Omicron variant is controversial yet. To address this, we conducted a systematic literature survey on effectiveness of the third or booster dose of COVID‐19 vaccine against the Omicron variant. We have performed a systematic search in PubMed (Medline), Google Scholar, and MedRXiv database, from inception to January 2022 using the MeSH terms and keywords “Corona Virus Disease‐2019 OR COVID‐19 AND Omicron AND COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine.” We have identified a total of 27 published studies. We have reviewed all the eligible available studies on the effectiveness of the COVID‐19 vaccine booster shots against the Omicron variant. This review may be helpful in accelerating the COVID‐19 booster dose vaccination.

Purpose Pain is an unpleasant sensation, but a protective mechanism of our body. It is the most common medical complaint requiring a visit to a physician. The new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) – zaltoprofen, is a preferential COX-2 inhibitor. It also inhibits bradykinin-induced nociceptive responses by blocking the B2 receptor-mediated pathway in the primary sensory neurons. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the anti-nociceptive activity of zaltoprofen with a conventional NSAID – piroxicam, in a mouse model of acute pain using hot plate and tail flick tests. Materials and methods Twenty-four adult Swiss albino mice (20–25 g) of either sex were used in this study. Oral zaltoprofen and piroxicam were used as test and standard drugs respectively. Anti-nociceptive activity was evaluated and compared using hot plate and tail flick tests. Results In comparison to the control group (vehicle), zaltoprofen showed a significant increase in reaction time at various time periods in the hot plate and tail flick tests. In the hot plate method, zaltoprofen groups (15 and 20 mg/kg) showed a significant elevation in pain threshold in comparison to control group (vehicle) ( p <0.001). In the tail flick model also, zaltoprofen groups (15 and 20 mg/kg) showed a significant increase in the reaction time in comparison to control group (vehicle). In both the analgesiometer assays, zaltoprofen was found to be non-inferior compared to a standard drug – piroxicam (positive control). Conclusion Our study concludes that zaltoprofen is an effective analgesic agent in various pain models. Our results support that zaltoprofen has therapeutic potential for treating pain disorders and is non-inferior to a standard drug – piroxicam.

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).

Since its identification in late 2019 the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) In Wuhan, China, by the World Health Organization (WHO), which cause the coronavirus disease 2019, it is rapidly spreading, resulting in the global pandemic. As of 19 December 2022, more than 64 million confirmed cases and 6,645,812 deaths have been reported across the world. Over time, the SARS-CoV-2 acquired genetic mutations resulting in multiple types of SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants that have been confirmed. The Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was identified later in November 2021, with enhanced immune escape and was followed with various sublineages due to mutations in the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2. However, rapid resurge in COVID-19 reports by Omicron subvariant BF.7(BA.2.75.2) in China and other countries, alarming global threat. The present systematic review was conducted using "Omicron" AND "BA.5.2.1.7" OR "BF.7" in Pub Med, Google Scholar and MedRXiv database and grey literature from the authentic database and websites . We have identified a total of 14 published studies. We have reviewed all the eligible available studies to understand the viral mutations, factors associated with increase in the reports of COVID-19 cases in china and across the world and to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccination and monoclonal antibodies against BF.7 variant

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.

Background COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 was declared as a global pandemic by the WHO. Famotidine is a histamine-2 (H2) receptor antagonist which blocks the H2 receptors in the parietal cells, decreasing gastric acid secretion. Our review aims to study all the available scientific evidence on famotidine research outcomes systematically to introspect its clinical efficacy and probable mechanisms and clinical efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. Methodology An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar was performed using MeSH terms “SARS CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” AND“FAMOTIDINE”. Relevant informationwas extracted from studies reporting the efficacy of famotidine in COVID-19. Results We found a total of 32 studies, out of which only 14 were relevant and were included in our review.Molecular computational studies showed that famotidine selectively acts on viral replication proteases papain-like protease (PLpro) and 3-chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro). Additionally, it acts via inverse-agonism on the H2 receptors present in neutrophils and eosinophils which leads to inhibition of cytokine release. Clinical study findings have pointed toward significant improvements in COVID-19 patient-reported symptoms in non-hospitalized patients and reduction in intubation or death in critically ill patients associated with the usage of famotidine. However,in one of the studies,famotidine has failed to show any significant benefit in reducing mortality due to COVID-19. Conclusion Famotidine has the potential to answer the ongoing global challenge owing to its selective action on viral replication. Additionally, clinical findings in COVID-19 patients support its efficacy to reduce clinical symptoms of COVID-19.We suggest that further optimally powered randomized clinical trials should be carried out to come up with definitive conclusions.

No abstract

BackgroundFixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are being widely prescribed for the treatment of various disorders in India. However, not all FDCs are rational. To know the awareness of physicians in prescribing rational FDCs was the need of the hour in order to assess the prescribing trends and rationality of FDCs. Eventually, this will help to formulate the guideline for rational use of FDCs.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study conducted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal, MP, India. Prescriptions were collected over a period of 2 months by the convenience sampling method from hospital pharmacy. The data were subjected to descriptive analysis using Microsoft Excel and Graph Pad Prism. Results were expressed in mean ± standard deviation (SD), percentages and 95% confidence interval.ResultsA total of 2496 drugs were prescribed in 1008 prescriptions, of which 945 (37.82%) were FDCs with an average of 0.93 ± 0.94 (mean ± SD) per prescription. Of 945, 67 (7.09%) were included in National List of Essential Medicine 2015 considered as rational. The number of prescriptions containing one or more FDCs was 629 (62.40%). FDCs were more frequently prescribed to male patients (54.92%) and in the age group of 18–30 years (33.44%). FDCs containing a proton pump inhibitor were prescribed most frequently (16.29%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (13.96%) and multivitamins (7.83%).ConclusionsPrescribing irrational FDCs was very common, and hence there is an obvious need to update our prescribers about the irrationality of FDC and motivate them to develop a habit of rational prescribing.