Outcome of Different Therapeutic Interventions in Mild COVID-19 Patients in a Single OPD Clinic of West Bengal: A Retrospective study

  1. Sayak Roy
  2. Shambo Samrat Samajdar
  3. Santanu K Tripathi
  4. Shatavisa Mukherjee
  5. Kingshuk Bhattacharjee

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

With over 87,273,380 cases being reported and 1,899,440 deaths worldwide as of 9th January 2021, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become the worst-hit pandemic till date. Every day clinicians are bombarded with many new treatment options that claim to be better than the others.

Materials and methods

After screening the electronic database of COVID-19 patients retrospectively, 56 patients with mild COVID-19 infection matched the inclusion criteria and were divided into the four following groups - group having used Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), group using doxycycline (DOX) + Ivermectin (IVR) combination, group receiving only azithromycin (AZ) and, group receiving only symptomatic treatment. The study’s primary objective was to see Clinical response of well-being (CRWB) reporting time after initiating treatment onset between the four different treatment arms.

Results

CRWB did not differ between the four groups receiving four different managements (p-value 0.846). There was significant correlation between blood levels of LDH (p-value 0.001), CRP (p-value 0.03) and D-dimer (p-value 0.04) with CRWB in IVR+DOX group and, between LDH (p-value 0.001), CRP (p-value 0.01) and age (p-value 0.035) with CRWB in the symptomatic management group.

Conclusion

Mild COVID-19 infection in patients having low-risk to progress can be managed symptomatically without any specific drug intervention.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.08.21252883: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Their medical data were retrieved from the electronic database (EDB) of the investigator after taking written consent.
    IACUC: This study was approved by an Institutional ethical committee and followed the declarations laid down in Helsinki’s declaration.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, our study is not without limitations. A record-based study has less power to draw any conclusion and comes with few biases. Moreover, the small sample size and single-center set-up hinders data generalizability to an extent. It was even difficult to state whether patients’ followed instructions or not and was based on their telephonic response, which invites bias. We could not perform serial RT-PCR to confer on patients’ decreasing viral load.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04422561CompletedProphylactic Ivermectin in COVID-19 Contacts
    NCT04425850CompletedUSEFULNESS of Topic Ivermectin and Carrageenan to Prevent Co…

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.08.21252883 on medRxiv