10 research outputs found

    COVID-19 viral load not associated with disease severity: findings from a retrospective cohort study

    No full text
    Background: Being able to use COVID-19 RT-PCR Ct values as simple clinical markers of disease outcome or prognosis would allow for the easy and proactive identification and triaging of high-risk cases. This study's objective was thus to explore whether a correlation exists between COVID-19 viral loads, as indicated by RT-PCR Ct values, and disease severity, as indicated by respiratory indices.Results: A multi-centre cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted, using data obtained from Bahrain's National COVID-19 Task force's centralised database. The study period ranged from May 2, 2020 to July 31, 2020. A multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for a correlation using data from a total of 1057 admitted COVID-19 cases. The covariates adjusted for included sex, age, presentation, and comorbidities. In our cohort, Ct value showed no statistical significance for an association with requirement for oxygenation on admission (Odds ratio 1.046; 95%CI 0.999 to 1.096, p = 0.054).Conclusion: Viral load, as indicated by Ct values, did not seem to be associated with requirement for oxygenation on admission in our cohort. We postulate however that time since onset of symptom may have acted as an unaccounted-for confounder. As such, RT-PCR Ct values may not be a useful prognostic clinical tool in isolation.</p

    The prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 in a cohort of quarantined subjects

    No full text
    Background: The frequency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with viral spread is unclear. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection development and progression was investigated in subjects undergoing mandatory quarantine on airport arrival.Methods: 2714 subjects were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and all were quarantined for 2 weeks. Viral retesting was undertaken on symptom development and routinely at 14 days if asymptomatic. Asymptomatic, positive patients underwent viral testing every 2 days to determine viral clearance.Results: 188/2714 (6.9%) patients became SARS-CoV-2 positive. On arrival, 136/188 tested positive, with 44/188 (23.4%) symptomatic and 92/188 (48.9%) asymptomatic. All 92 patients remained asymptomatic and were retested every 2 days until viral clearance. 2526 quarantined subjects remained virus free at 14 days. Viral clearance did not differ between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (12.6 ± 1.0 days and 12.1 ± 0.4 days, respectively). Of the 52/188 (27.7%) testing negative on arrival, 27/52 subsequently became positive and developed symptoms 2-13 days after arrival. 25/188 (13.3%) remained asymptomatic and tested positive at day 14, with viral testing undertaken every 2 days in these subjects; of these, 24 remained asymptomatic, with viral clearance at 9.4 ± 0.7 days - less than for those who were asymptomatic on arrival (p Conclusion: Asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 were more prevalent than those exhibiting symptoms, and are an infection reservoir.</p

    Evaluation of rapid antigen tests using nasal samples to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients

    No full text
    Introduction: The best way to mitigate an outbreak besides mass vaccination is via early detection and isolation of infected cases. As such, a rapid, cost-effective test for the early detection of COVID-19 is required.Methods: The study included 4,183 mildly symptomatic patients. A nasal and nasopharyngeal sample obtained from each patient was analyzed to determine the diagnostic ability of the rapid antigen detection test (RADT, nasal swab) in comparison with the current gold-standard (RT-PCR, nasopharyngeal swab).Results: The calculated sensitivity and specificity of the RADT was 82.1 and 99.1%, respectively. Kappa's coefficient of agreement between the RADT and RT-PCR was 0.859 (p Conclusion: Our study's results support the potential use of nasal swab RADT as a screening tool in mildly symptomatic patients, especially in patients with higher viral loads.</p

    The effect of ABO blood group and antibody class on the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity of clinical outcomes

    No full text
    The COVID-19 pandemic has affected more than 100 million cases and caused immense burdens on governments and healthcare systems worldwide. Since its emergence in December 2019, research has been focused on treating the infected, identifying those at risk and preventing spread. There is currently no known biological biomarker that predicts the risk of infection. Several studies emerged suggesting an association between ABO blood group and the risk of COVID-19 infection. In this study, we used retrospective observational data in Bahrain to investigate the association between ABO blood group and risk of infection, as well as susceptibility to severe ICU-requiring infection. We found a higher risk associated with blood group B, and a lower risk with blood group AB. No association was observed between blood group and the risk of a severe ICU-requiring infection. We extended the analysis to study the association by antibodies; anti-a (blood groups B and O) and anti-b (blood groups A and O). No association between antibodies and both risk of infection or susceptibility to severe infection was found. The current study, along with the variation in blood group association results, indicates that blood group may not be an ideal biomarker to predict risk of COVID-19 infection. <br

    COVID-19 and sickle cell disease in Bahrain

    No full text
    Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a newly identified strain of the coronavirus family that has been shown to affect the hemoglobin beta chain, the same chain that has sickle cell disease (SCD) mutation. This study was undertaken to see if COVID-19 infection increased disease severity in patients with SCD.Methods: Mass screening of the Bahraini population was undertaken between February and April 2020.Results: A total of 38,092 Bahraini people were tested for COVID-19 during this period; 378 (1%) were SCD patients. Six patients with SCD had COVID-19 (1.6%): three remained asymptomatic, two had mild symptoms and one required oxygen therapy. The SCD patients had a similar average length of stay when compared with non-SCD COVID-19 patients (10.7 days).Conclusion: The infection rate, clinical course and viral clearance seen for the SCD patients with COVID-19 were no different to those without SCD.</p

    The high prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals the silent spread of COVID-19

    No full text
    Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 92 million cases and 1.9 million deaths worldwide since its outbreak. Public health responses have focused on identifying symptomatic individuals to halt spread. However, evidence is accruing that asymptomatic individuals are infectious and contributing to this global pandemic.Methods: Observational data of 320 index cases and their 1289 positive contacts from the National COVID-19 Database in Bahrain were used to analyze symptoms, infectivity rate and PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) values.Results: No significant difference (p = 1.0) in proportions of symptomatic (n = 160; 50.0%) and asymptomatic index cases (n = 160; 50.0%) were seen; however, SARS-CoV-2 positive contact cases were predominantly asymptomatic (n = 1127, 87.4%). Individuals aged 0-19 years constituted a larger proportion of positive contact cases (20.8%) than index cases (4.7%; p Conclusion: These data reveal that the high asymptomatic incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Bahrain and subsequent positive contacts from an index case were more likely to be asymptomatic, showing the high "silent" risk of transmission and need for comprehensive screening for each positive infection to help halt the ongoing pandemic.</p

    Is sickle cell disease a risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients? A multicenter national retrospective cohort study

    No full text
    Introduction: Studies that examine the association between sickle cell disease (SCD) and COVID-19 outcomes are lacking. This study aims to determine whether SCD is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection in regard to the requirement of noninvasive ventilation/high flow nasal cannula (NIV/HFNC), mechanical ventilation (MV), or death in hospitalized patients.Methods: Retrospective cohort study included COVID-19 patients admitted to four COVID-19 treatment facilities in Bahrain between February 24, 2020 and July 31, 2020. All SCD patients with COVID-19 were included and compared to a randomly selected sample of non-SCD patients with COVID-19. Data were collected from the medical records. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to control for confounders and estimate the effect of SCD on the outcomes.Results: 1792 patients with COVID-19 were included; 38 of whom were diagnosed with SCD as well. In the SCD group, one (2.6%) patient required NIV/HFNC, one (2.6%) required MV, and one (2.6%) death occurred. In comparison, 56 (3.2%) of the non-SCD patients required NIV/HFNC, 47 (2.7%) required MV, and death occurred in 58 (3.3%) patients. Upon adjusting for confounders, SCD had an odds ratio of 1.847 (95% CI: 0.39-8.83; p = 0.442).Conclusion: Our results indicate that SCD is not a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.</p

    Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease

    No full text
    Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in COVID-19 disease may improve clinical outcome in severe disease. This pilot study was undertaken to inform feasibility and safety of further definitive studies. This was a prospective, interventional and randomized open label pilot trial in patients with severe COVID-19. Twenty COVID-19 patients received two 200 ml transfusions of convalescent patient CP over 24-h compared with 20 who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the requirement for ventilation (non-invasive or mechanical ventilation). The secondary outcomes were biochemical parameters and mortality at 28 days. The CP group were a higher risk group with higher ferritin levels (p < 0.05) though respiratory indices did not differ. The primary outcome measure was required in 6 controls and 4 patients on CP (risk ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.22–2.0, p = 0.72); mean time on ventilation (NIV or MV) did not differ. There were no differences in secondary measures at the end of the study. Two patients died in the control and one patient in the CP arm. There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures between CP and standard therapy, although a larger definitive study is needed for confirmation. However, the study did show that CP therapy appears to be safe in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxia. Clinical trials registration NCT04356534: 22/04/2020

    The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: a multicenter national retrospective cohort

    No full text
    Introduction: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug that received worldwide news and media attention in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This drug was used on the basis of its antimicrobial and antiviral properties despite lack of definite evidence of clinical efficacy. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of using HCQ in treatment of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted in acute care hospitals in Bahrain.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a random sample of patients admitted with COVID-19 between 24 February and 31 July 2020. The study was conducted in four acute care COVID-19 hospitals in Bahrain. Data was extracted from the medical records. The primary endpoint was the requirement of non-invasive ventilation, intubation, or death. Secondary endpoint was length of hospitalization for survivors. Three methods of analysis were used to control for confounding factors: logistic multivariate regression, propensity score adjusted regression, and matched propensity score analysis.Results: A random sample of 1571 patients were included, 440 of whom received HCQ (treatment group) and 1131 did not receive it (control group). Our results showed that HCQ did not have a significant effect on primary outcomes due to COVID-19 infection when compared to controls after adjusting for confounders (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.85-2.37, P = 0.17). Co-administration of azithromycin had no effect on primary outcomes (OR 2.7, 95% CI 0.82-8.85, P = 0.10). HCQ was associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia (OR 10.9, 95% CI 1.72-69.49, P = 0.011) and diarrhea (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5, P = 0.003), but not QT prolongation (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.95-3.9, P = 0.06) or cardiac arrhythmia (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55-2.05, P = 0.85).Conclusion: Our results showed no significant beneficial effect of using hydroxychloroquine on the outcome of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the risk of hypoglycemia due to hydroxychloroquine would possess a significant risk for out-of-hospital use.</p

    Randomized controlled trial of favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard care in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 disease

    No full text
    Favipiravir has antiviral activity against influenza, West Nile virus, and yellow fever virus and against flaviviruses. The objective of this pilot study was to compare three arms: favipiravir; hydroxychloroquine; standard care (no specific SARS-CoV-2 treatment) only, in symptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 in an open-labelled randomized clinical trial. The trial was registered with Bahrain National Taskforce for Combatting COVID-19 on the 7th of May 2020 (registration code: NCT04387760). 150 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 disease were randomized into one of three arms: favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, or standard care only. The primary outcome was the clinical scale at the end of study follow up (day 14 or on discharge/death) based on a points scale. The secondary outcomes were viral clearance, biochemical parameter changes and mortality at 30-days. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved a clinical scale NCT04387760. Registration date: 07/05/2020
    corecore