Manu Shetty

and 9 more

Background and Purpose: Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for establishing causality in drug efficacy, However, they have limitations due to strict inclusion criteria and complexity. When RCTs are not feasible, researchers turn to observational studies. Explainable AI (XAI) models provide an alternative approach to understanding cause-and-effect relationships. Experimental Approach: : In this study, we utilized an XAI model with a historical COVID-19 dataset to establish the hypothesis of drug efficacy. The datasets consisted of 3,307 COVID-19 patients from a hospital in Delhi, India. Eight XAI models were employed to assess factors influencing COVID-19 mortality. LIME and SHAP interpretability techniques were applied to the best-performing ML model to determine feature importance in outcome. Key Results: The XGBoost ML classifier outperformed (weighted F1 score, MCC, accuracy, ROC-AUC, sensitivity and specificity score of 91.7%, 58.8%, 91.3%, 92.2% 93.8%, and 70.2%, respectively) other models and the SHAP summary plot enabled the identification of significant features that contributes to COVID-19 mortality. These features encompassed comorbidities like renal and cardiac diseases and tuberculosis. Additionally, the XAI models revealed that medications such as enoxaparin, remdesivir, and ivermectin did not exhibit preventive effects on mortality Conclusion and Implications: While XAI models offer valuable insights, they should not replace RCTs as a priority for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and treatments. However, XAI models can serve as valuable tools for suggesting future research directions and aiding clinical decision-making, particularly when the efficacy of a drug in a controlled trial is uncertain.

Vikas Manchanda

and 7 more

Introduction Multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2 from Alpha to Omicron have an estimated 6.1 million deaths globally till date. However, variants have been found to vary in transmissibility and severity. The present study deals with comparison of morbidity and mortality with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants. Methods An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted on a cohort of laboratory confirmed patients of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by qRT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs in periods; April-2021 & January-2022; that were sequenced and variants were recorded. Patients were invited for a telephonic interview after voluntary and informed consent was obtained from each participant wherein, the demographics, co-morbidities, oxygen requirement and mortality outcomes of the patients were enquired about. Results A total of 200 patients, with 100 from each period were included in the study. Major comorbidities in patients included hypertension, diabetes mellitus and pulmonary disease. Patients who succumbed to the Delta variant (26%) were higher as compared to the Omicron variant (10%); with the elderly (68 ± 9.7 years) having mortality during the Omicron variant. A significantly increased risk for mortality was observed in comorbidities in both Delta and Omicron variants with hypertension (OR:1.3;5.44), diabetes mellitus (OR:0.99;1.94), chronic pulmonary disease (OR:1.6;2.25), chronic kidney disease (OR:3.18;0.89), and smoking (OR:1.74;1.55). Conclusion The study concluded that the Omicron has potential of high transmissibility and milder disease for the population by large, however, it is not a milder strain for patients with comorbidities having a higher risk of adverse outcomes than that of the previously dominant Delta variant.

Sudhanshu Mahajan

and 12 more

Objectives: Myocardial injury during active coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection is well described however, its persistence during recovery is unclear. We assessed left ventricle (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in COVID-19 recovered patients and studied its correlation with various parameters.Methods: A total of 134 subjects within 30-45 days post recovery from COVID-19 infection and normal LV ejection fraction were enrolled. Routine blood investigations, inflammatory markers (on admission) and comprehensive echocardiography including STE were done for all. Results: Of the 134 subjects, 121 (90.3%) were symptomatic during COVID-19 illness and were categorized as mild: 61 (45.5%), moderate: 50 (37.3%) and severe: 10 (7.5%) COVID-19 illness. Asymptomatic COVID-19 infection was reported in 13 (9.7%) patients. Subclinical LV and right ventricle (RV) dysfunction were seen in 40 (29.9%) and 14 (10.5%) patients respectively. Impaired LVGLS was reported in 1 (7.7%), 8 (13.1%), 22 (44%) and 9 (90%) subjects with asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe disease respectively. LVGLS was significantly lower in patients recovered from severe illness (mild: -21 ± 3.4%; moderate: -18.1 ± 6.9%; severe: -15.5 ± 3.1%; P < 0.0001). Subjects with reduced LVGLS had significantly higher interleukin-6 (P < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (P = 0.001), lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.009) and serum ferritin (P = 0.03) levels during index admission. Conclusions: Subclinical LV dysfunction was seen in nearly a third of recovered COVID-19 patients while 10.5% had RV dysfunction. Our study suggests a need for closer follow-up among COVID-19 recovered subjects to elucidate long-term cardiovascular outcomes.