BackgroundDiabetes mellitus is a highly prevalent condition in Malaysia, increasing from 11.6% in 2006 to 15.2% in 2011 among individuals 18 years and above. Co-morbid depression in diabetics is associated with hyperglycemia, diabetic complications and increased health care costs. The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence and predictors of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms in Type II diabetics attending government primary care facilities in the urban area of Klang Valley, Malaysia.MethodsThe study was cross sectional in design and carried out in 12 randomly selected primary care government clinics in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. A total of 2508 eligible consenting respondents participated in the study. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) 21 questionnaire was used to measure depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Data was analyzed using the SPSS version 16 software using both descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsThe prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms among Type II diabetics were 11.5%, 30.5% and 12.5% respectively. Using multiple logistic regression, females, Asian Indians, marital status (never married, divorced/widowed/separated), a family history of psychiatric illness, less than 2 years duration of diabetes and current alcohol consumption were found to be significant predictors of depression. For anxiety, unemployment, housewives, HbA1c level of more than 8.5%, a family history of psychiatric illness, life events and lack of physical activity were independent risk factors. Stress was significantly associated with females, HbA1c level of more than 8.5%, presence of co-morbidity, a family history of psychiatric illness, life events and current alcohol consumption. For depression (adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1; 7.0), anxiety (adjusted OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1;5.5) and stress (adjusted OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.8; 9.8), a family history of psychiatric illness was the strongest predictor.ConclusionWe found the prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms to be high among Type II diabetics, with almost a third being classified as anxious. Screening of high risk Type II diabetics for depression, anxiety and stress symptoms in the primary care setting is recommended at regular intervals.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of the non-laboratory INTERHEART risk score (NL-IHRS) to predict incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) across seven major geographic regions of the world. The secondary objective was to evaluate the performance of the fasting cholesterol-based IHRS (FC-IHRS).MethodsUsing measures of discrimination and calibration, we tested the performance of the NL-IHRS (n=100 475) and FC-IHRS (n=107 863) for predicting incident CVD in a community-based, prospective study across seven geographic regions: South Asia, China, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe/North America, South America and Africa. CVD was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or coronary revascularisation.ResultsMean age of the study population was 50.53 (SD 9.79) years and mean follow-up was 4.89 (SD 2.24) years. The NL-IHRS had moderate to good discrimination for incident CVD across geographic regions (concordance statistic (C-statistic) ranging from 0.64 to 0.74), although recalibration was necessary in all regions, which improved its performance in the overall cohort (increase in C-statistic from 0.69 to 0.72, p<0.001). Regional recalibration was also necessary for the FC-IHRS, which also improved its overall discrimination (increase in C-statistic from 0.71 to 0.74, p<0.001). In 85 078 participants with complete data for both scores, discrimination was only modestly better with the FC-IHRS compared with the NL-IHRS (0.74 vs 0.73, p<0.001).ConclusionsExternal validations of the NL-IHRS and FC-IHRS suggest that regionally recalibrated versions of both can be useful for estimating CVD risk across a diverse range of community-based populations. CVD prediction using a non-laboratory score can provide similar accuracy to laboratory-based methods.

Background COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged as an unprecedented challenge to discover effective drugs for its prevention and cure. Hyperinflammation-induced lung damage is one of the poor prognostic indicators causing a higher rate of morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 patients. Favipiravir, an antiviral drug, is being used for COVID-19 treatment, and we currently have limited information regarding its efficacy and safety. Thus, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the adverse drug events (ADEs) reported in the WHO pharmacovigilance database. Methods This study analyzed all suspected ADEs related to favipiravir reported from 2015. The reports were analyzed based on age, gender, and seriousness of ADEs at the System Organ Classification (SOC) level and the individual Preferred Term (PT) level. Results This study is based on 194 ADEs reported from 93 patients. Most frequent ADEs suspected to be caused by the favipiravir included increased hepatic enzymes, nausea and vomiting, tachycardia, and diarrhea. Severe and fatal ADEs occurred more frequently in men and those over the age of 64 years. Blood and lymphatic disorders, cardiac disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, injury poisoning, and procedural complications were more common manifestations of severe ADEs. Conclusion This study revealed that favipiravir appears to be a relatively safe drug. An undiscovered anti-inflammatory activity of favipiravir may explain the improvement in critically ill patients and reduce inflammatory markers. Currently, the data is based on very few patients. A more detailed assessment of the uncommon ADEs needs to be analyzed when more information will be available.

Background: Antibiotics are lifesaving drugs, and inappropriate uses lead to the resistance that renders them ineffective. This study aims to understand knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) concerning antibiotic use and resistance among university students in Bangladesh. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed from January to April 2020 among students at Jahangirnagar University (JU), Bangladesh. Purposive sampling was conducted through an in-person interview using a structured questionnaire. Students from the faculties of biological sciences and non-biology background were included. The univariate ordinal regression technique was used to analyze the relationship between predictors and good knowledge about the antibiotics. A two-tailed p-value was calculated to determine statistical association. Results: Out of 205 study participants, 92 and 113 responders were from biological science faculty and non-biology disciplines, respectively. Less than half of the students (42.4%) showed a good knowledge level (scores higher than 80%). Biology-background students possess better knowledge than non-biology students [odds ratio (OR) = 4.44, 95% confidence level (CL) (2.56, 7.70), p < 0.001]. A better attitude was noticed among all students. The self-medication rate was quite low, and more than 90% of students were found to consume antibiotics according to the physician's prescription. Lack of treatment adherence was recorded, and students admitted to stoptaking antibiotics when symptoms disappeared (48.67% biology and 36.26% non-biology). Multivariate regression analysis was unable to detect any significant association between selfmedication and gender, student category or the level of knowledge about antibiotics. Conclusion: Students of biological science background possessed better knowledge indicating the importance of appropriate curriculum imparted in knowledge buildup. Introducing a short course about the risk and development of antibiotic resistance will grow the students' awareness to avoid the resistance phenomenon.

Recent severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) known as COVID-19, presents a deadly challenge to the global healthcare system of developing and developed countries, exposing the limitations of health facilities preparedness for emerging infectious disease pandemic. Opportune detection, confinement, and early treatment of infected cases present the first step in combating COVID-19. In this review, we elaborate on various COVID-19 diagnostic tools that are available or under investigation. Consequently, cell culture, followed by an indirect fluorescent antibody, is one of the most accurate methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, restrictions imposed by the regulatory authorities prevented its general use and implementation. Diagnosis via radiologic imaging and reverse transcriptase PCR assay is frequently employed, considered as standard procedures, whereas isothermal amplification methods are currently on the verge of clinical introduction. Notably, techniques such as CRISPR-Cas and microfluidics have added new dimensions to the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Furthermore, commonly used immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), neutralization assay, and the chemiluminescent assay can also be used for early detection and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, advancement in the next generation sequencing (NGS) and metagenomic analysis are smoothing the viral detection further in this global challenge.