Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an enigmatic entity, with obscure pathophysiology and debatable efficacy of the treatment agents used. An underlying cause is identified in only 10-15% of cases. The management of the remaining patients, classified as 'idiopathic', is empirical, and is conventionally with systemic steroids, vasodilator therapy, rheological agents, and antioxidants, to list a few amongst the host of the agents employed for the treatment. The availability of conflicting outcomes and lack of conclusive evidence has resulted in the propagation of consensus-based treatment protocols. In the present review, we discuss the various controversial issues and newer developments in the management of idiopathic SSNHL. The current review aims to present a narrative outlook of the updated evidence base available from PUBMED, augmented with relevant designated publications.

In the absence of effective vector control measures and vaccines against leishmaniasis, effective chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment. As the armoury of antileishmanial drugs is limited, strategies should be made to target the emergence of drug resistance. The loss of efficacy of antimonials such as sodium stibogluconate in the Indian subcontinent which has been the mainstay of treatment for more than six decades has raised concern to save the other drugs. In the current review, we highlight various steps which could be implemented to halt the increasing unresponsiveness of drugs such as monitoring of therapy in the form of rational dosing and duration of treatment, understanding the mechanism of action of the drugs and drug resistance, identification of markers of resistance, distribution of drugs free of cost, evolution of effective combination therapy and immunotherapy, and proper management of HIV/VL coinfection and post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). Strong support from governmental agencies and local communities in the form of education and orientation programmes for feasibility of implementing these strategies and affordability within the context of their health systems is needed in controlling and preventing leishmaniasis.

Background. Long regimens for the treatment of post‐kala‐azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) result in noncompliance. A safe, effective, and acceptable regimen for the treatment of PKDL is still to be developed. Miltefosine has been found to be effective in the treatment of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL). Hence, its efficacy was tested in patients of PKDL. Methods. In this exploratory study, 33 patients with PKDL aged 10 years and above were administered miltefosine (50 mg for those weighing <25 kg or 100 mg in divided doses for those ≥25 kg and 2.5 mg per kg for children) for 12 weeks and followed up for one year to find out the efficacy. Results. Out of 33 patients, 3 patients withdrew consent. Treatment was stopped due to adverse effect in 1 patient. 28 (96.6%) got cured with complete disappearance of lesion while 1 patient (3.4%) failed treatment by protocol analysis. Conclusion. Miltefosine was found to be effective and safe in the treatment of PKDL.

Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) is recommended for treatment of Indian visceral leishmaniasis (VL), with a cure rate of more than 95% in the Indian subcontinent. A prospective observational study of 1,143 subjects was performed with a longer follow-up than prior studies (12 months) to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of LAmB for the treatment of VL. Patients received a single dose of 10 mg/kg LAmB and were evaluated for initial cure at day 30 and final cure at 6 and 12 months to see the response to the therapy. Furthermore, predictors of relapse were also calculated. At day 30, the initial cure rate was 100%; however, at 6 months and 12 months, cure rates were 97.0% and 94.2% by per-protocol analysis and 96.9% and 93.9% by intension-to-treat analysis, respectively. Fever was the most common adverse event (AE). There were no deaths and serious AEs. Male gender, weight less than 30 kg, and spleen size more than 4 cm at the start of the treatment were significant risk factors of relapse. Liposomal amphotericin B was found to be very effective and safe in the treatment of VL. A longer follow-up period of 12 months is recommended to pick up late relapses.

This study was done with aim to assess the serum sclerostin and dickkopf-1 (DKK-1) level in patients of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to correlate their level with disease activity and bone mineral density. Fifty patients of RA and equal age and sex matched healthy controls were included in the study. Patients were evaluated clinically and investigated with routine blood tests along with rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibody (anti-CCP₂), radiographs and bone mineral density (BMD). Serum sclerostin and DKK-1 levels of both cases and controls was assayed by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assay [RayBio^®, Georgia, USA with coefficient of variation percent (CV %), < 10%] and compared with disease activity and bone mineral density. Disease activity was measured by Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) along with Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) score. Mean serum sclerostin and DKK-1 was significantly higher in study group as compared to control group. Serum sclerostin showed significant correlation with disease activity scores (DAS score and MHAQ score), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level. Serum sclerostin at level of 394 pg/mL was found to have diagnostic significance with sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 90%. DKK-1 level shows significantly positive correlation with larson score which denotes radiological progression (r value 0.468; p value 0.001). More studies with larger sample size of RA patients are needed for better determination of the role of sclerostin and DKK-1 in RA. Also, the correlation of these and other bone turn over markers will help decipher their role with disease progression in RA patients.

Background There is paucity of real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness from cohort designs. Variable vaccine performance has been observed in test-negative case-control designs. There is also scarce real-world data of health issues in individuals receiving vaccines after prior COVID-19, and of adverse events of significant concern (AESCs) in the vaccinated. Methods: A cohort study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2021 in a tertiary hospital of North India. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the second wave in India. Secondary outcomes were AESCs, and persistent health issues in those receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Regression analyses were performed to determine risk factors of COVID-19 outcomes and persistent health issues. Results: Of the 2760 health care workers included, 2544 had received COVID-19 vaccines, with COVISHIELD (rChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine) received by 2476 (97.3%) and COVAXIN (inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) by 64 (2.5%). A total of 2691 HCWs were included in the vaccine effectiveness analysis, and 973 COVID-19 events were reported during the period of analysis. Maximum effectiveness of two doses of vaccine in preventing COVID-19 occurrence was 17% across three different strategies of analysis adopted for robustness of data. One-dose recipients were at 1.27-times increased risk of COVID-19. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was a strong independent protective factor against COVID-19 (aOR 0.66). Full vaccination reduced moderate–severe COVID-19 by 57%. Those with lung disease were at 2.54-times increased risk of moderate–severe COVID-19, independent of vaccination status. AESCs were observed in 33/2544 (1.3%) vaccinees, including one case each of myocarditis and severe hypersensitivity. Individuals with hypothyroidism were at 5-times higher risk and those receiving a vaccine after recovery from COVID-19 were at 3-times higher risk of persistent health issues. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduced COVID-19 severity but offered marginal protection against occurrence. The possible relationship of asthma and hypothyroidism with COVID-19 outcomes necessitates focused research. With independent protection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and high-risk of persistent health issues in individuals receiving vaccine after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the recommendation of vaccinating those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection needs reconsideration.