Context:Rapid treatment of sepsis is of crucial importance for survival of patients. Specific and rapid markers of bacterial infection have been sought for early diagnosis of sepsis. One such measurement, Procalcitonin (PCT), has recently become of interest as a possible marker of the systemic inflammatory response to infection.Aims:This study was done to find out the common sources of sepsis and to evaluate the diagnostic value of PCT, its predictive value and its relation with Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and mortality in various stages of sepsis.Settings and Design:The prospective study was conducted at our tertiary care center from October 2006 to December 2008. A total of 100 patients were included in the study. The study sample included all patients aged above 18 years presenting consecutively to our center during the study period with acute sepsis. They were divided into three groups: sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shockbased on standardized criteria.Materials and Methods:PCT and various other relevant factors were measured in all study subjects. These parameters were compared among the three study groups. The statistical analyses were done using Student “t” test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).Results:Respiratory tract infection was the most common source of sepsis. PCT proved to be an excellent indicator of sepsis with sensitivity of 94%. There was a significant association between serum PCT and SOFA scores (P < 0.05). Serum PCT levels did not predict mortality in the present study.Conclusions:PCT is among the most promising sepsis markers, capable of complementing clinical signs and routine lab parameters suggestive of severe infection.

Introduction: COVID-19 infection caused by SARS-Corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused large number of infections and mortality globally. There are no proven medications to prevent and treat COVID-19, nevertheless several potential pharmacotherapeutic agents have been tried. Remdesivir was found to be effective in few studies. Aims: To assess the outcome in COVID-19 confirmed cases receiving Remdesivir as compared to conventional therapy. Methodology: This study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in South India after the approval of the Institutional ethical committee. It was a medical records-based retrospective, longitudinal study. Medical records of the inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 infection were reviewed from the period of June 15, 2020 to September 15, 2020. This study was conducted to assess the clinical and laboratory profile and outcome in the patients admitted with moderate and severe COVID-19 disease who received Remdesivir. Statistical Analysis: The analysis was done using SPSS Inc. released 2009, PASW statistics for Windows version 18.0, Chicago. Results: One hundred eleven (N = 111) patients were included in the study. 56 patients received the conventional treatment (Hydroxychloroquine HCQ) and 55 patients received Remdesivir. It was seen that among patients treated with HCQ, 24 (42.9%) required non-invasive ventilation and seven (12.7%) patients treated with Remdesivir required it (P = 0.001). It was noticed that the mean duration of hospitalization was 16.6 days in HCQ group and was 11.4 days in Remdesivir group (P = 0.021). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that Remdesivir does have benefit in reducing the mortality and duration of hospital stay. There was reduced requirement of non-invasive and invasive ventilation among patients treated with Remdesivir.