METHODS: We analysed the data from ischaemic stroke cases admitted to Sarawak General Hospital between June 2013 and June 2021. We matched the underlying PMRFs with prior medications and categorised them as treated, untreated, or no PMRF. We calculated the prevalence and assessed the association between untreated PMRFs and in-hospital mortality or favourable functional outcome (FFO) at discharge, which was adjusted for age, sex, and other covariates in multivariable models.

RESULTS: We included 1963 patients [65.4% male, 59.8 (SD 13.4) years]; 43.8% who had at least one untreated PMRF had triple the odds of in-hospital mortality [adjusted OR (aOR) 2.86, (95%CI 1.44, 5.70)], whereas 30.2% who had all PMRFs treated showed no significant association. Untreated hypertension [aOR 2.19 (95%CI 1.21, 3.98)], treated [aOR 3.02 (95%CI 1.32, 6.92)], and untreated atrial fibrillation [aOR 1.89 (95%CI 1.18, 3.03)] were significantly associated with more in-hospital death, whereas treated prior stroke was associated with fewer in-hospital death [aOR 0.31 (95%CI 0.11, 0.84)]. Treated diabetes [aOR 0.66 (95%CI 0.49, 0.88)] and untreated prior stroke [aOR 0.53 (95%CI 0.33, 0.83)] were associated with fewer FFO.

STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled healthy married, monogamous, heterosexual condom users in a randomized controlled, cross-over, pilot trial in Malaysia. We randomized participants to six groups with different condom use-orders of the experimental WLC and WLM and control latex condom for four episodes for vaginal sex over 1 month for each condom type. We summarized the clinical and non-clinical failure rate, safety and acceptability of each condom type using descriptive statistics. We tested differences in condom failure and acceptability using generalized estimating equations and repeated measure ANOVA respectively.

RESULTS: We screened 75 couples and randomized 50 eligible couples. Two couples withdrew before receiving any condom. The remaining used 576 condoms with 192 uses for each condom variant. Clinical failure rates of WLC, WLM and DT were 1.04%, 0% and 0.52%, respectively. Non-clinical failure rates of WLC, WLM and DT were 2.08%, 3.12% and 1.04%, respectively. Removal was found more painful with Wondaleaf products than the DT. Preferences of participants for WLC, WLM and DT were 33.3%, 29.2% and 25%, respectively. Overall, WLC and DT had greater acceptances among male participants than WLM.

CONCLUSION: Results of this pilot study support that use of synthetic adhesive male condoms is associated with failure rates similar to those seen with existing latex, and with greater acceptability. A larger study to ascertain non-inferiority is underway.

METHODS: We included ischaemic stroke cases admitted to Sarawak General Hospital between June 2013 and August 2018 from Malaysia National Stroke Registry. We performed descriptive analyses on patient demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, prior medications, smoking status, arrival time, thrombolysis rate, Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke measures, and outcomes at discharge. We also numerically compared the results from Sarawak with the published data from selected national and international cohorts.

RESULTS: We analysed 1435 ischaemic stroke cases. The mean age was 60.1±13.2 years old; 64.9% were male; median baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was seven points. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor of ischaemic stroke; 12.7% had recurrent stroke; 13.7% were active smokers. The intravenous thrombolysis rate was 18.8%. We achieved 80-90% in three GWTG-Stroke performance measures and 90-98% in four additional quality measures in our ischaemic stroke management. At discharge, 57% had modified Rankin Scale of 0-2; 6.7% died during hospitalisation. When compared with selected national and international data, patients in Sarawak were the youngest; Sarawak had more male and more first-ever stroke. Thrombolysis rate in Sarawak was higher compared with most studies in the comparison. Functional outcome at discharge in Sarawak was better than national cohort but still lagging behind when compared with the developed countries. In-hospital mortality rate in Sarawak was slightly lower than the national data but higher when compared with other countries.

METHODS: This questionnaire development study involved four phases: (i) exploring and understanding the subject matter, (ii) questionnaire development, (iii) content validity testing, and lastly, (iv) field-testing of the questionnaire. For the field-testing phase, a cross-sectional self-administered survey of JoinCT was conducted among cancer patients with various socio-demographic backgrounds and medical conditions. Besides content validity, Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate the internal consistency of domains, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the model fit of the JoinCT framework.

METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period.

RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21).

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.