METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study (ratio 1:1) where a patient with CRE infection or colonisation was matched with a control. The control was an individual who tested negative for CRE but was a close contact of a patient testing positive and was admitted at the same time and place. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were done.
RESULTS: The study included 154 patients. The majority of the CRE was Klebsiella species (83%). From univariate analysis, the significant risk factors were having a history of indwelling devices (OR: 2.791; 95% CI: 1.384-5.629), concomitant other MDRO (OR: 2.556; 95% CI: 1.144-5.707) and hospitalisation for more than three weeks (OR: 2.331; 95% CI: 1.163-4.673). Multivariate analysis showed that being unable to ambulate on admission (adjusted OR: 2.345; 95% CI: 1.170-4.699) and antibiotic exposure (adjusted OR: 3.515; 95% CI: 1.377-8.972) were independent predictors. The in-hospital mortality rate of CRE infection was high (64.5%). CRE acquisition resulted in prolonged hospitalisation (median=35 days; P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: CRE infection results in high morbidity and mortality. On top of the common risk factors, patients with mobility restriction, prior antibiotic exposures and hospitalisation for more than three weeks should be prioritised in the screening strategy to control the spread of CRE.
Objective: The objective was to determine the survival rates and prognostic factors of survival in HIV-infected adults treated with ART in Malaysia.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study considered all HIV-positive adult patients registered in Sungai Buloh Hospital, a major referral center in Malaysia, between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. Then, patients were selected through a systematic sampling method. Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were extracted from electronic medical records. Person-years at risk and incidence of mortality rate per 100 person-years were calculated. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test were used to compare the overall survival rates. Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to determine the prognostic factors for survival.
Results: A total of 339 patients were included. The estimated overall survival rates were 93.8%, 90.4%, 84.9%, and 72.8% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively, from ART initiation. The results of multiple Cox proportional hazard regression indicated that anemic patients were at a 3.76 times higher risk of mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97-7.18; P < 0.001). The hazard risk was 2.09 times higher for HIV patients co-infected with tuberculosis (95% CI: 1.10, 3.96; P = 0.024).
Conclusion: The overall survival rates among HIV-infected adults in this study are higher than that from low-income countries but lower than that from high-income countries. Low baseline hemoglobin levels of <11 g/dL and tuberculosis co-infection were strong prognostic factors for survival.
METHODS: We included 446 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive patients taking at least one treatment drug for COVID-19 within a period of one month (March-April 2020). In addition to COVID-19-related treatment (HCQ/PI), concomitant drugs with risks of QTc prolongation were considered. We defined QTc prolongation as QTc interval of ≥470 ms in postpubertal males, and ≥480 ms in postpubertal females.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: QTc prolongation events occurred in 28/446 (6.3%) patients with an incidence rate of 1 case per 100 person-days. A total of 26/28 (93%) patients who had prolonged QTc intervals received at least two pro-QT drugs. Multivariate analysis showed that HCQ and PI combination therapy had five times higher odds of QTc prolongation as compared to HCQ-only therapy after controlling for age, cardiovascular disease, SIRS and the use of concurrent QTc-prolonging agents besides HCQ and/or PI (OR 5.2; 95% CI, 1.11-24.49; p = 0.036). Independent of drug therapy, presence of SIRS resulted in four times higher odds of QTc prolongation (OR 4.3; 95% CI, 1.66-11.06; p = 0.003). In HCQ-PI combination group, having concomitant pro-QT drugs led to four times higher odds of QTc prolongation (OR 3.8; 95% CI, 1.53-9.73; p = 0.004). Four patients who had prolonged QTc intervals died but none were cardiac-related deaths.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: In our cohort, hydroxychloroquine monotherapy had low potential to increase QTc intervals. However, when given concurrently with protease inhibitors which have possible or conditional risk, the odds of QTc prolongation increased fivefold. Interestingly, independent of drug therapy, the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) resulted in four times higher odds of QTc prolongation, leading to the postulation that some QTc events seen in COVID-19 patients may be due to the disease itself. ECG monitoring should be continued for at least a week from the initiation of treatment.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the extent of treatment interruption caused by efavirenz-associated ADEs.
METHODS: A case-control study of efavirenz recipients who did, versus did not (control) develop adverse drug events (ADE), and who were matched for baseline CD4 + at a ratio of 1:1.3 was conducted. Antiretroviral -naïve patients who were started on efavirenz were followed up retrospectively, and their records scrutinized every month for 2 years. Demographic and clinical predictors of treatment interruption were computed using Cox proportional hazard models. Kaplan- Meier curves were plotted to assess time to treatment interruption for the two groups. Clinical endpoints were: i) efficacy -improved CD4 + counts and/or viral load (VL) suppression, ii) safety -absence of treatment-limiting toxicities, and iii) durability - no interruption until follow-up ended.
RESULTS: Both groups had comparable CD4 + counts at baseline (p = 0.15). At t = 24-months, VL in both groups were suppressed to undetectable levels (<20 copies/mL) while median CD4 + was 353 cells/µL (IQR: 249-460). The mean time on treatment was 23 months (95% CI, 22.3 -23.4) in the control group without ADE and 20 months (95% CI, 18.9 - 21.6) in the ADE group (p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated that 59.5% of patients who experienced ≥ 1 ADE versus 81% of those who did not experience any ADE were estimated to continue treatment for up to 24 months with no interruption (p = 0.001). Most interruptions to EFV treatment occurred in the presence of opportunistic infections and these were detected within the first 5 months of treatment initiation. Independent predictors which negatively impacted the dependent variable i.e., treatment durability, were intravenous drug use (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.03-4.61, p = 0.043), presence of ≥ 1 opportunistic infection(s) (aHR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.13-4.21, p = 0.021), and presence of ≥ 1 serious ADE(s) (aHR 4.18, 95% CI, 1.98-8.85, p = 0.00).
CONCLUSION: Efavirenz' role as the preferred first-line regimen for South-East Asia's resource-limited regions will need to be carefully tailored to suit the regional population. Findings have implications to policy-makers and clinicians, particularly for the treatment of patients who develop ADEs and opportunistic infections, and for intravenous drug user subgroups.
Method: Clinical records of all RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases aged ≥12 years admitted to 18 designated hospitals in Malaysia between 1st February and 30th May 2020 with complete outcomes were retrieved. Epidemiological history, co-morbidities, clinical features, investigations, management and complications were captured using REDCap database. Variables were compared between mild and severe diseases. Univariate and multivariate regression were used to identify determinants for disease severity.
Findings: The sample comprised of 5889 cases (median age 34 years, male 71.7%). Majority were mild (92%), and 3.3% required intensive care, with 80% admitted within the first five days. Older age (≥51 years), underlying chronic kidney disease and chronic pulmonary disease, fever, cough, diarrhoea, breathlessness, tachypnoea, abnormal chest radiographs and high serum CRP (≥5 mg/dL) on admission were significant determinants for severity (p<0.05). The case fatality rate was 1.2%, and the three commonest complications were liver injuries (6.7%), kidney injuries (4%), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (2.3%).
Interpretations: Lower case fatality rate was possibly contributed by young cases with mild diseases and early hospitalisation. Abnormal chest radiographic findings in elderly with tachypnoea require close monitoring in the first five days to detect early deterioration.
METHODS: This was an observational study reviewing all confirmed ZIKV cases detected in Malaysia through the ZIKV clinical surveillance and Flavivirus laboratory surveillance between June 2015 and December 2017. All basic demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, clinical, laboratory and outcome data of the confirmed ZIKV cases were collected from the source documents.
RESULTS: Only eight out of 4043 cases tested positive for ZIKV infection during that period. The median age of infected patients was 48.6 years and majority was Chinese. Two of the subjects were pregnant. The median interval between the onset of disease and the first detection of ZIKV Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) in body fluid was 3 days. Six cases had ZIKV RNA detected in both serum and urine samples. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that isolates from the 7 cases of ZIKV infection came from two clusters, both of which were local circulating strains.
CONCLUSION: Despite similar ecological background characteristics, Malaysia was not as affected by the recent ZIKV outbreak compared to Brazil and Singapore. This could be related to pre-existing immunity against ZIKV in this population, which developed after the first introduction of the ZIKV in Malaysia decades ago. A serosurvey to determine the seroprevalence of ZIKV in Malaysia was carried out in 2017. The differences in circulating ZIKV strains could be another reason as to why Malaysia seemed to be protected from an outbreak.
Methods: We prospectively recruited 400 HCW from the National Public Health Laboratory and two COVID-19 designated public hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia between 13/4/2020 and 12/5/2020. Quota sampling was used to ensure representativeness of HCW involved in direct and indirect patient care. All participants answered a self-administered questionnaire and blood samples were taken to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by surrogate virus neutralization test.
Findings: The study population comprised 154 (38.5%) nurses, 103 (25.8%) medical doctors, 47 (11.8%) laboratory technologists and others (23.9%). A majority (68.9%) reported exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the past month within their respective workplaces. Adherence to personal protection equipment (PPE) guidelines and hand hygiene were good, ranging from 91-100% compliance. None (95% CI: 0, 0.0095) of the participants had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected, despite 182 (45.5%) reporting some symptoms one month prior to study recruitment. One hundred and fifteen (29%) of participants claimed to have had contact with known COVID-19 persons outside of their workplace.
Interpretation: Zero seroprevalence among HCW suggests a low incidence of undiagnosed COVID-19 infection in our healthcare setting during the first local wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within healthcare facilities can be prevented by adherence to infection control measures and appropriate use of PPE.
STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 public hospitals across Malaysia from February to June 2021 among 500 symptomatic, RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, aged ≥50 years with ≥1 co-morbidity, and hospitalized within first 7 days of illness. Patients were randomized on 1:1 ratio to favipiravir plus standard care or standard care alone. Favipiravir was administered at 1800mg twice-daily on day 1 followed by 800mg twice-daily until day 5. The primary endpoint was rate of clinical progression from non-hypoxia to hypoxia. Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: Among 500 patients were randomized (mean age, 62.5 [SD 8.0] years; 258 women [51.6%]; and 251 [50.2%] had COVID-19 pneumonia), 487 (97.4%) patients completed the trial. Clinical progression to hypoxia occurred in 46 (18.4%) patients on favipiravir plus standard care and 37 (14.8%) on standard care alone (OR 1.30; 95%CI, 0.81-2.09; P=.28). All three pre-specified secondary end points were similar between both groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 6 (2.4%) vs 5 (2.0%) (OR 1.20; 95%CI, 0.36-4.23; P=.76), ICU admission in 13 (5.2%) vs 12 (4.8%) (OR 1.09; 95%CI, 0.48-2.47; P=.84), and in-hospital mortality in 5 (2.0%) vs 0 (OR 12.54; 95%CI, 0.76- 207.84; P=.08).
CONCLUSIONS: Among COVID-19 patients at high risk of disease progression, early treatment with oral favipiravir did not prevent their disease progression from non-hypoxia to hypoxia.
METHODS: We recruited 81 travelers and 15 non-travelers (including ten controls) prospectively within a mean of 3·22 days of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Each study participant provided 2 mls of early morning fresh drooled whole saliva separately into a sterile plastic container and GeneFiX™ saliva collection kit. The saliva specimens were processed within 4 h and tested for SARS-CoV-2 genes (E, RdRP, and N2) and the results compared to paired NPS RT-PCR for diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Majority of travellers were asymptomatic (75·0%) with a mean age of 34·26 years. 77 travelers were RT-PCR positive at the time of hospitalization whilst three travelers had positive contacts. In this group, the detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 with NPS, whole saliva, and GeneFiX™ were comparable (89·3%, 50/56; 87·8%, 43/49; 89·6%, 43/48). Both saliva collection methods were in good agreement (Kappa = 0·69). There was no statistical difference between the detection rates of saliva and NPS (p > 0·05). Detection was highest for the N2 gene whilst the E gene provided the highest viral load (mean = 27·96 to 30·10, SD = 3·14 to 3·85). Saliva specimens have high sensitivity (80·4%) and specificity (90·0%) with a high positive predictive value of 91·8% for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 screening is a simple accurate technique comparable with NPS RT-PCR.
METHODS: This 1:1 propensity score matched cohort study from 647 public health clinics in Malaysia included all patients with COVID-19 with positive tests aged 18 years and older, who were eligible for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment within 5 days of illness from July 14, 2022, to November 14, 2022. The exposed group was patients with COVID-19 initiated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, whereas those not initiated with the drug served as the control group. Data was analyzed from July 14, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
RESULTS: A total of 20,966 COVID-19 high-risk outpatients (n = 10,483 for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and n = 10,483 for control group) were included in the study. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was associated with a 36% reduction (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64 [95% CI 0.43, 0.94]) in hospitalization compared with those not given the drug. There was a single ICU admission for the control group and one death each was reported in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and control group, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 even in highly vaccinated populations.
METHODS: The 30-day hospitalization related to COVID-19 was determined using 1 to 1 propensity score-matched real-world data in Malaysia from 14 July 2022 to 14 November 2022. To determine the total per-person costs related to COVID-19, we added the cost of drug (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or control), clinic visits and inpatient care. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per hospitalization averted was calculated.
RESULTS: Our cohort included 31,487 patients. The rate of hospitalization within 30 days was found to be 0.35% for the group treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 0.52% for the control group. The nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group cost an additional MYR 1,625.72 (USD 358.88) per patient. This treatment also resulted in a reduction of 0.17% risk for hospitalization, which corresponded to an ICER of MYR 946,801.26 (USD 209,006.90) per hospitalization averted.
CONCLUSION: In Malaysia, where vaccination rates were high, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has been shown to be beneficial in the outpatient treatment of adults with COVID-19 who have risk factors; however, it was only marginally cost effective against hospitalization for healthy adults during the Omicron period.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.