COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, which originated in Wuhan, Hubei province, Central China, in December 2019 and since then has spread rapidly, resulting in a severe pandemic. The infected patient presents with varying non-specific symptoms requiring an accurate and rapid diagnostic tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. This is followed by effective patient isolation and early treatment initiation ranging from supportive therapy to specific drugs such as corticosteroids, antiviral agents, antibiotics, and the recently introduced convalescent plasma. The development of an efficient vaccine has been an on-going challenge by various nations and research companies. A literature search was conducted in early December 2020 in all the major databases such as Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar search engines. The findings are discussed in three main thematic areas namely diagnostic approaches, therapeutic options, and potential vaccines in various phases of development. Therefore, an effective and economical vaccine remains the only retort to combat COVID-19 successfully to save millions of lives during this pandemic. However, there is a great scope for further research in discovering cost-effective and safer therapeutics, vaccines and strategies to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 prevention and treatment services.
BACKGROUND:
Vasovagal reactions to blood donation though generally mild and account for about 1% of donations, causes embarrassment/injury to the donors, lower likely return rates for future donations etc. The workforce hours devoted to attending to those who reacted can also affect the efficiency of the blood centre. There are various factors, both modifiable and nonmodifiable, involved in the causation of such reactions.
OBJECTIVES:
This study sought to identify the factors associated with vasovagal donor reactions in a case–control study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
This was a descriptive comparative study between donors who had VVRs (cases) and those who did not (controls) during or after blood donation from a single center in southern India. All the biophysical and demographic variables were collected from the donor records. In addition, a questionnaire was administered to the donors after donation within half an hour, addressing the psychosocial variables. All the data were captured in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 20.
RESULTS:
A total of 178 donors who had donor reactions were included in the study with an equal number of controls who were age and sex-matched. Donors who had VVRs had an odds of 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4–7.7) of admitted anxiety for blood donation. They also had an odds of 4.4 (95% CI: 2.8–6.9) of disturbed sleep the night before blood donation. Having an accompanying person to the blood center was detrimental, with an odds of 0.32 (95% CI: 0.2–0.6). Donors with local complications such as hematoma, double prick, or delayed collection had an odds of 21.2 (95% CI: 1.8–159.8) of developing VVR.
CONCLUSION:
The psychosocial factors such as fear of the needle, the sight of the blood, state of mind, and quality and duration of sleep seem to have an association, adversely impacting the donors resulting in VVRs after/during blood donation.
Purpose To report a case of spontaneous suprachoroidal haemorrhage in a haemophilia patient immediately following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. Case presentation A 60-year-old man with haemophilia developed painful vision loss in his left eye a day following the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination due to acute angle-closure glaucoma from a massive suprachoroidal haemorrhage. He had an extremely deranged coagulation profile; activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT): 89 s, normal range 29–35 s After factor VIII transfusion, ocular hypotensive therapy and systemic/topical steroids, the suprachoroidal haemorrhage and glaucoma resolved, but the vision remained poor. Conclusion Spontaneous suprachoroidal haemorrhage may be seen in haemophiliacs with deranged coagulation profiles. In our case, it followed ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination, and we recommend caution and checking the coagulation profile in such patients apriori.
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.