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).
CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.
METHODS: A modified susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered compartmental model was developed that included two sequential incubation and infectious periods, with stratification by clinical state. The model was further stratified by age and incorporated population mobility to capture NPIs and micro-distancing (behaviour changes not captured through population mobility). Emerging variants of concern (VoC) were included as an additional strain competing with the existing wild-type strain. Several scenarios that included different vaccination strategies (i.e. vaccines that reduce disease severity and/or prevent infection, vaccination coverage) and mobility restrictions were implemented.
RESULTS: The national model and the regional models all fit well to notification data but underestimated ICU occupancy and deaths in recent weeks, which may be attributable to increased severity of VoC or saturation of case detection. However, the true case detection proportion showed wide credible intervals, highlighting incomplete understanding of the true epidemic size. The scenario projections suggested that under current vaccination rates complete relaxation of all NPIs would trigger a major epidemic. The results emphasise the importance of micro-distancing, maintaining mobility restrictions during vaccination roll-out and accelerating the pace of vaccination for future control. Malaysia is particularly susceptible to a major COVID-19 resurgence resulting from its limited population immunity due to the country's historical success in maintaining control throughout much of 2020.
METHODS: RNA was extracted from nasopharyngeal swab samples by a simple RNA extraction method.
RESULTS: Testing of 77 samples demonstrated 91.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78-98.2%) and 100% specificity (95% confidence interval: 92-100%) using UDG RT-LAMP.
CONCLUSION: This colorimetric UDG RT-LAMP is a simple-to-use, fast, and easy-to-interpret method, which could serve as an alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in remote hospitals and laboratories with under-equipped medical facilities.
METHODS: In the current project, we have described two extraction-free reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by using E gene and RdRp gene as the targets.
RESULTS: Here, results showed that reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays with 88.4% sensitive (95% CI: 74.9-96.1%) and 67.4% sensitive (95% CI: 51.5-80.9%) for E gene and RdRp gene, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Without the need of RNA purification, our developed RT-LAMP assays for direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab samples could be turned into alternatives to qRT-PCR for rapid screening.
METHODS: Here, we applied reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification directly onto human clinical swabs samples to amplify the RNA from SARS-CoV-2 swab samples after processing with chelating resin.
RESULTS: By testing our method on 64 samples, we managed to develop an RT-LAMP assay with 95.9% sensitivity (95% CI 86 to 99.5%) and 100% specificity (95% CI 78.2-100%).
CONCLUSION: The entire process including sample processing can be completed in approximately 50 min. This method has promising potential to be applied as a fast, simple and inexpensive diagnostic tool for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS: A rapid, sensitive and specific real-time reverse transcription LAMP (RT-LAMP) assay was developed for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
RESULTS: This assay detected one copy/reaction of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 30 min. Both the clinical sensitivity and specificity of this assay were 100%. The RT-LAMP showed comparable performance with RT-qPCR. Combining simplicity and cost-effectiveness, this assay is therefore recommended for use in resource resource-limited settings.
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.
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: 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.