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.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: The prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI) among young Indian adults is on the rise with reports suggesting 32.7% of all deaths in men and 32.6% of all deaths in women between 2010-13 were due to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Though various long-term cohort studies have established risk assessment scores none of them are specific to the Indian population. In this study, we look to establish which scoring system among the American College of Cardiology (ACC), Joint British Society (JBS3) and Framingham Risk Scores (FRS) would be reliable for the Indian population. A timely intervention based on the most reliable score can help mitigate cardiovascular diseases.Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included Indian adults, aged more than 40 years, with first MI. Patients previously on lipid lowering drugs were excluded. Demographic data, history, clinical information, laboratory data and other investigations were noted. Subsequently the predicted cardiovascular risk scores based on JBS3, ACC, and FRS were calculated and divided into low risk, intermediate and high risk based on the categorization of the risk scores individually.Results: There were 102 (79.1%) males and 23 (17.8%) females with a mean age of 51.01 years (standard deviation [SD]=12.82, p value <0.001). There was considerable prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus with 56 (47.1%) of the subjects being known diabetics.The mean 10-year risk of MI based on ACC was 12.42% (SD=10.45), mean JBS3 score was 14.45% (SD=12.67) and mean FRS score was 15.75% (SD=14.71). FRS scores when categorized, 48 (40.3%) patients had low risk, 30 (23.3%) had medium risk and 43 (33.3%) had high risk. As for ACC score, 39 (35.8%) patients were in low risk and 29 (26.6%) in intermediate risk, borderline in 18 (16.5%) and high risk in 23 (21.1%). In JBS3 scores, 53 (46.5%) patients were in low risk, 32 (28.1%) were in moderate risk and 29 (25.4%) in high risk. Conclusion:The absolute value of 10-year risk scores was highest for FRS scores. The proportion of patients whose scores were under the category of high risk was highest for FRS.