Search

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly across the world. Tunisia reacted early to COVID-19, resulting in a low number of infections during the first wave of the pandemic. This study was performed to model the effects of different interventions on the evolution of cases and to compare these with the Tunisian experience. Methods: A stochastic transmission model was used to quantify the reduction in number of cases of COVID-19 with the interventions of contact tracing, compliance with isolation, and a general lockdown. Results: In the model, increasing contact tracing from 20% to 80% after the first 100 cases reduced the cumulative number of infections (CNI) by 52% in 1 month. Similarly, increased compliance with isolation from 20% to 80% after the first 100 cases reduced the CNI by 45%. These reductions were smaller if the interventions were implemented after 1000 cases. A general lockdown reduced the CNI by 97% after the first 100 cases. Tunisia implemented its general lockdown after 75 cases were confirmed, which reduced the cumulative number of infected cases by 86% among the general population. Conclusions: This study shows that the early application of critical interventions contributes significantly to reducing infections and the evolution of COVID-19 in a country. Tunisia’s early success with the control of COVID-19 is explained by its quick response.

Background: Mutations in KRAS and NRAS often result in constitutive activation of RAS in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway. Mutations in KRAS exon 2 (codon 12–13) predict resistance to anti-EGFR targeted therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). However, it's currently known that a significant proportion of mCRC have RAS mutations outside KRAS exon 2, particularly in exons 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS. No data about RAS mutations outside KRAS exon 2 are available for Tunisian mCRC. The aim of this study was to analyze RAS, using pyrosequencing, in nine hotspots mutations in Tunisian patients with mCRC. Methods: A series of 131 mCRC was enrolled. Nine hotspots sites mutations of KRAS and NRAS were analyzed (KRAS: codons 12–13, codons 59–61, codon 117 and codon 146, NRAS: codons 12–13, codon 59, codon 61, codon 117 and codon 146) using Therascreen KRAS and RAS extension pyrosequencing kits. Results: Analysis was successful in 129 cases (98.5%). Mutations were observed in 97 cases (75.2%) dominated by those in KRAS exon 2 (86.6%). KRAS G12V was the most dominated mutation, observed in 25 cases (25.8%), and followed by KRAS G12S and KRAS G12D, each in 17 cases (17.5%). Mutations outside of KRAS exon 2 presented 13.4% of mutated cases and almost a third (28.8%) of KRAS exon 2 wild type mCRC. Among those, 9 cases (69.3%) carried mutations in NRAS exons 2, 3 and 4 and 4 cases (30.7%) in KRAS exons 3 and 4. Conclusions: RAS mutations outside exon 2 of KRAS should be included in routine practice, since they predict also response to anti-EGFR. That would make certain these patients benefit from appropriate testing and treatment. In addition unjustified expenses of anti-EGFR targeted therapy could be avoided.