Background: The COVID-19 causing coronavirus is an enveloped RNA virus that utilizes an enzyme RNA dependent RNA polymerase for its replication. Favipiravir (FVP) triphosphate, a purine nucleoside analog, inhibits that enzyme. We have conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of the drug FVP as a treatment for COVID-19. Methods: Databases like Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, preprint sites, and clinicaltirals.gov were searched. The studies with the standard of care (SOC) and FVP as a treatment drug were considered as the treatment group and the SOC with other antivirals and supportive care as the control group. Quantitative synthesis was done using RevMan 5.4. Clinical improvement, negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), adverse effects, and oxygen requirements were studied. Results: We identified a total of 1798 studies after searching the electronic databases. Nine in the qualitative studies and four studies in the quantitative synthesis met the criteria. There was a significant clinical improvement in the FVP group on the 14th day compared to the control group (RR 1.29, 1.08–1.54). Clinical deterioration rates were less likely in the FVP group though statistically not significant (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30–1.14) at the endpoint of study (7–15 days). The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups on viral clearance (day 14: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84–1.33), non-invasive ventilation or oxygen requirement (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42–1.39), and adverse effects (OR 0.69, 0.13–3.57). There are 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in different parts of the world focusing FVP for COVID-19 treatment. Conclusion: There is a significant clinical and radiological improvement following treatment with FVP in comparison to the standard of care with no significant differences on viral clearance, oxygen support requirement and side effect profiles.

New-onset diabetes in COVID-19 and clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Hepatitis B imposes a major public health problem with an increased risk of occupational exposure among unvaccinated health care workers. This study was conducted to determine the Hepatitis B vaccination status, along with the knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding Hepatitis B, among preclinical medical students of a medical college in Nepal. Materials and methods: This descriptive study was conducted among preclinical students of a medical college in Kathmandu, Nepal from 6^th July to 14^th July 2020. The whole sampling technique was used. Data were collected using a pretested, self-administered questionnaire which was emailed to individuals and analyzed with the statistical package for social sciences version-22. Results: A total of 181 students participated in the study out of 198, giving a response rate of 91.4%. Among the study participants, only 67 (37%) were fully vaccinated against Hepatitis B while 71 (39.2%) were never vaccinated. For the majority (74.6%) of the non-vaccinated participants, the main reason for not getting vaccination was a lack of vaccination programs. Half the study participants (n = 92, 50.8%) had good knowledge, attitude and practice regarding hepatitis B. The median knowledge, attitude and practice scores towards Hepatitis B were 61.00 (57.00–66.00), 20(18.00–21.00) and 21(19.00–23.00) respectively. Conclusions: The majority of preclinical medical students were not fully vaccinated against Hepatitis B and only half of them had acceptable knowledge, attitude and practice towards Hepatitis B, which makes them vulnerable to the infection. This might represent the situation of not only Nepal, but also all South Asian countries, and creates concern about whether students take the vaccination programs seriously. Since unavailability of vaccination program is the main cause of non-vaccination, we strongly recommend the provision of the Hepatitis B vaccination program to the preclinical medical students.

An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema in patients with COVID-19. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value and significance of the available data. A thorough systematic search was conducted to identify studies of barotrauma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data analysis of case reports was done using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22, and meta-analysis was performed using CMA-3. We identified a total of 4488 studies after thorough database searching.118 case reports and series, and 15 observational studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Fifteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The observational studies reported barotrauma in 4.2% (2.4–7.3%) among hospitalized patients; 15.6% (11–21.8%) among critically ill patients; and 18.4% (13–25.3%) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, showing a linear relationship of barotrauma with the severity of the disease. In addition, barotrauma was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, more extended ICU stay, and higher in-hospital mortality. Also, a slightly higher odds of barotrauma was seen in COVID-19 ARDS compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS. COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with a higher incidence of barotrauma. It presents unique challenges for invasive and non-invasive ventilation management. Further studies are required to unravel the underlying pathophysiology and develop safer management strategies.

Background: Medical students are more prone to burnout than the general population and students of other faculties due to the demanding nature of medical education with limited time and resources. Burnout has a negative impact on the academics and personal life of the students which can continue into their professional life and ultimately hamper patient care. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of burnout among medical students of a medical college and find its association with age, gender, and year of study. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among medical students of a medical college in Kathmandu, Nepal from 14 January to 7 March, 2021. Stratified sampling followed by a simple random sampling technique was employed to select study participants. Data was collected through a self-administered questionnaire using the English version of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory adapted for students (OLBI-S) and analyzed in STATA version 15. Results: The prevalence of burnout was found out to be 65.9% (n = 229). And of the remaining, 12.7% were exhausted, 11.4% were disengaged and 10.0% were neither exhausted nor disengaged. Burnout had no significant association with age in years, gender, and year of study. Conclusions: This study shows an alarming prevalence of burnout in almost two-thirds of medical students. These results indicate the necessity of employing effective strategies by relevant authorities for the mental well-being of future physicians. Further multicenter prospective studies are required for a better understanding of the prevalence and associated factors of burnout.

Introduced in the 1970s to meet the academic needs of a growing number of students with relatively stagnant faculty, team-based learning (TBL) has revolutionized the modern classroom structure. Contrary to the traditional didactic model where the teacher assumes the central role and students are passive listeners, TBL participants are actively involved in the learning process. Teachers act as facilitators while the TBL participants work in groups to solve problems through engagement with their peers. The objective of the article is to conduct a systematic review on team-based learning using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The studies were searched in databases like PubMed®, Scopus®, Embase®, and PubMed Central® using appropriate keywords. Two authors screened the papers, and a third author resolved the conflicts. This was followed by a bibliographic review based on the references of the selected study and bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. The team-based learning model is increasingly being used by different institutions globally. TBL and traditional lecture-based teaching outcomes revealed that TBL participants performed better in academic, clinical, and communication domains. In addition, TBL enhanced learners' engagement, collaborative spirit, and satisfaction. Our study results are similar to the prior meta-analysis and systematic review. Nevertheless, this systematic review remains more comprehensive, up-to-date, and inclusive thus far. Team-based learning is a pragmatic and superior approach to learning among health care professionals. It has resulted in better academic, clinical, and communication outcomes. This finding spans all the medical and allied professions studied in this systematic review.