Background & objectives: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China and rapidly spread globally including India. The characteristic clinical observations and outcomes of this disease (COVID-19) have been reported from different countries. The present study was aimed to describe the clinico-demographic characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of a group of COVID-19 patients in north India. Methods: This was a prospective, single-centre collection of data regarding epidemiological, demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters, management and outcome of COVID-19 patients admitted in a tertiary care facility in north India. Patient outcomes were recorded as death, discharge and still admitted. Results: Data of 144 patients with COVID-19 were recorded and analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 40.1±13.1 yr, with 93.1 per cent males, and included 10 (6.9%) foreign nationals. Domestic travel to or from affected States (77.1%) and close contact with COVID-19 patients in congregations (82.6%) constituted the most commonly documented exposure. Nine (6.3%) patients were smokers, with a median smoking index of 200. Comorbidities were present in 23 (15.9%) patients, of which diabetes mellitus (n=16; 11.1%) was the most common. A significant proportion of patients had no symptoms (n=64; 44.4%); among the symptomatic, cough (34.7%) was the most common symptom followed by fever (17.4%) and nasal symptoms (2.15%). Majority of the patients were managed with supportive treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin given on a case-to-case basis. Only five (3.5%) patients required oxygen supplementation, four (2.8%) patients had severe disease requiring intensive care, one required mechanical ventilation and mortality occurred in two (1.4%) patients. The time to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity was 16-18 days. Interpretation & conclusions: In this single-centre study of 144 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in north India, the characteristic findings included younger age, high proportion of asymptomatic patients, long time to PCR negativity and low need for intensive care unit care.

A 26-year-old postpartum COVID-positive mother admitted in COVID isolation facility at a tertiary care center in India. Her primary physical concern was suture site pain and concerns related to expressed breast milk discarding. Her psychological concerns include distrust on COVID report, belief of unjust isolation, lack of family support, loneliness, feeling of not breast feeding her baby, fear, anxiety, anger, stress, and depression. She was concerned about the stigma anticipated for herself and her baby. Spiritually, she was concerned as she was not able to make harmony between herself and environment.

Introduction There is a lack of large multicentric studies in children with COVID-19 from developing countries. We aimed to describe the clinical profile and risk factors for severe disease in children hospitalized with COVID-19 from India. Methods In this multicentric retrospective study, we retrieved data related to demographic details, clinical features, including the severity of disease, laboratory investigations, and outcome. Results We included 402 children with a median (IQR) age of 7 (2,11) years. Fever was the most common symptom, present in 38.2% of children. About 44% had underlying comorbidity. The majority were asymptomatic (144, 35.8%) or mildly symptomatic (219, 54.5%). There were 39 (9.7%) moderate-severe cases and 13 (3.2%) deaths. The laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia 25.4%; thrombocytopenia 22.1%; transaminitis 26.4%; low total serum protein 34.7%; low serum albumin 37.9%; and, and low alkaline phosphatase 40%. Out of those who were tested, raised inflammatory markers were ferritin 58.9% (56/95); c-reactive protein 33.3% (41/123); procalcitonin 53.5% (46/86); and interleukin-6 (IL-6) 76%. The presence of fever, rash, vomiting, underlying comorbidity, increased total leucocyte count, thrombocytopenia, high urea, low total serum protein, and raised c-reactive protein were factors associated with moderate to severe disease. Conclusion Fever was the commonest symptom. We identified additional laboratory abnormalities, namely lymphopenia, low total serum protein and albumin, and low alkaline phosphatase. The majority of the children were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. We found high urea and low total serum protein as risk factors for moderate to severe disease for the first time.

Background Coronavirus-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) has limited effective therapy to date. NLRP3 inflammasome activation induced by SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 contributes to cytokine storm. Methods This randomised, multinational study enrolled hospitalised patients (18–80 years) with COVID-19-associated pneumonia and impaired respiratory function. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1) via Interactive Response Technology to DFV890 + standard-of-care (SoC) or SoC alone for 14 days. Primary endpoint was APACHE II score at Day 14 or on day-of-discharge (whichever-came-first) with worst-case imputation for death. Other key assessments included clinical status, CRP levels, SARS-CoV-2 detection, other inflammatory markers, in-hospital outcomes, and safety. Findings Between May 27, 2020 and December 24, 2020, 143 patients (31 clinical sites, 12 countries) were randomly assigned to DFV890 + SoC ( n = 71) or SoC alone ( n = 72). Primary endpoint to establish clinical efficacy of DFV890 vs. SoC, based on combined APACHE II score, was not met; LSM (SE), 8·7 (1.06) vs. 8·6 (1.05); p = 0.467. More patients treated with DFV890 vs. SoC showed ≥ 1-level improvement in clinical status (84.3% vs. 73.6% at Day 14), earlier clearance of SARS-CoV-2 (76.4% vs. 57.4% at Day 7), and mechanical ventilation-free survival (85.7% vs. 80.6% through Day 28), and there were fewer fatal events in DFV890 group (8.6% vs. 11.1% through Day 28). DFV890 was well tolerated with no unexpected safety signals. Interpretation DFV890 did not meet statistical significance for superiority vs. SoC in primary endpoint of combined APACHE II score at Day 14. However, early SARS-CoV-2 clearance, improved clinical status and in-hospital outcomes, and fewer fatal events occurred with DFV890 vs. SoC, and it may be considered as a protective therapy for CARDS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04382053. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01904-w.

Background Hypoxia in patients with COVID-19 is one of the strongest predictors of mortality. Silent hypoxia is characterized by the presence of hypoxia without dyspnea. Silent hypoxia has been shown to affect the outcomes in previous studies. Research Question Are the outcomes in patients presenting with silent hypoxia different from those presenting with dyspneic hypoxia? Study design and Methods This was a retrospective study of a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were hypoxic at presentation. Clinical, laboratory and treatment parameters in patients with silent hypoxia and dyspneic hypoxia were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors predicting mortality. Results Among 2080 patients with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital, 811 patients were hypoxic with SpO2<94% at the time of presentation. 174 (21.45%) did not have dyspnea since the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. 5.2% of patients were completely asymptomatic for COVID-19 and were found to be hypoxic only on pulse oximetry. The case fatality rate in patients with silent hypoxia was 45.4% as compared to 40.03% in dyspneic hypoxic patients (P=0.202). The odds ratio of death was 1.1 (95% CI 0.41-2.97) in the patients with silent hypoxia after adjusting for baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, treatment, and in-hospital complications, which did not reach statistical significance (P=0.851). Interpretation Silent hypoxia may be the only presenting feature of COVID-19. Since the case fatality rate is comparable between silent and dyspneic hypoxia, it should be recognized early and treated as aggressively. Since home isolation is recommended in patients with COVID-19, it is essential to use pulse oximetry at the home setting to identify these patients.