Novel Scoring Systems to Predict the Need for Oxygenation and ICU Care, and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Risk Stratification Tool.

INTRODUCTION: A rapid surge in cases during the COVID-19 pandemic can overwhelm any healthcare system. It is imperative to triage patients who would require oxygen and ICU care, and predict mortality. Specific parameters at admission may help in identifying them. METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study was undertaken in a COVID-19 ward of a tertiary care center. All baseline clinical and laboratory data were captured. Patients were followed till death or discharge. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to find predictors of the need for oxygen, need for ICU care, and mortality. Objective scoring systems were developed for the same using the predictors. RESULTS: The study included 209 patients. Disease severity was mild, moderate, and severe in 98 (46.9%), 74 (35.4%), and 37 (17.7%) patients, respectively. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >4 was a common independent predictor of the need for oxygen (p<0.001), need for ICU transfer (p=0.04), and mortality (p=0.06). Clinical risk scores were developed (10*c-reactive protein (CRP) + 14.8*NLR + 12*urea), (10*aspartate transaminase (AST) + 15.7*NLR + 14.28*CRP), (10*NLR + 10.1*creatinine) which, if ≥14.8, ≥25.7, ≥10.1 predicted need for oxygenation, need for ICU transfer and mortality with a sensitivity and specificity (81.6%, 70%), (73.3%, 75.7%), (61.1%, 75%), respectively.  Conclusion: The NLR, CRP, urea, creatinine, and AST are independent predictors in identifying patients with poor outcomes. An objective scoring system can be used at the bedside for appropriate triaging of patients and utilization of resources.

Clinical profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19- and BBV152-vaccinated individuals among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a pair-matched study.

Background: COVID-19 infections among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-vaccinated individuals are of clinical concern, especially in those requiring hospitalization. Such real-world data on ChAdOx1 nCoV-19- and BBV152-vaccinated individuals are scarce. Hence, there is an urgent need to understand their clinical profile and outcomes. Methods: A 1:1 pair-matched study was performed among vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted between March 2021 and June 2021 at a tertiary care centre in New Delhi, India. The vaccinated group (received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBV152) was prospectively followed till discharge or death and matched [for age (±10 years), sex, baseline disease severity and comorbidities] with a retrospective group of unvaccinated patients admitted during the study period. Paired analysis was done to look for clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The study included a total of 210 patients, with 105 in each of the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In the vaccinated group, 47 (44.8%) and 58 (55.2%) patients had received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152, respectively. However, 73 patients had received one dose and 32 had received two doses of the vaccine. Disease severity was mild in 36.2%, moderate in 31.4% and severe in 32.4%. Two mortalities were reported out of 19 fully vaccinated individuals. All-cause mortality in the vaccinated group was 8.6% (9/105), which was significantly lower than the matched unvaccinated group mortality of 21.9% (23/105), p = 0.007. Vaccination increased the chances of survival (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.42-10.18) compared to the unvaccinated group. Conclusion: In the second wave of the pandemic predominated by delta variant of SARS CoV-2, vaccination reduced all-cause mortality among hospitalized patients, although the results are only preliminary.

Outcomes of HFNC Use in COVID-19 Patients in Non-ICU Settings: A Single-center Experience.

How to cite this article: Aggarwal A, Arora U, Mittal A, Aggarwal A, Singh K, Ray A, et al.Outcomes of HFNC Use in COVID-19 Patients inNon-ICU Settings: A Single-center Experience. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):528-530.

Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among healthcare workers: Initial experience from India.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had generated considerable interest for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prophylaxis. We conducted a prospective observational study at a tertiary care hospital in India, with dedicated COVID-19 care facilities. Objectives: Primary objective was incidence of adverse effects, secondary objective being efficacy in preventing COVID-19. Methods: Healthcare workers were recruited and grouped based on voluntary HCQ prophylaxis as per national guidelines. Side effects in HCQ group were graded in accordance with national cancer institute-common terminology criteria for adverse events (NCI-CTCAE) version 5.0. At 3-7-week follow-up, groups were compared for COVID-19 exposure, symptoms development and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR results. Results: Among 358 participants recruited, 216 (60.3%) were males and mean age was 31.2 ± 6.6 years. Chemoprophylaxis was initiated by 258 (72%) participants. After loading dose, 7 (2.7%) reported grade 2 and 1 (0.4%) grade 3 adverse effects. Discontinuation of HCQ due to side effects was reported in 11 (4.3%) participants. Electrocardiogram was done by 50 (19.4%) participants on HCQ; no abnormalities were noted. A total of 106 (41%) among those taking and 63 (63%) among those not taking HCQ were tested for SARS-CoV-2 due to influenza-like illness or significant exposure. Among all participants, 25 (6.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3-9.6) developed COVID-19 during the study period. In the group taking HCQ, 10 (3.9%) tested positive compared to 15 (15%) in the group not taking HCQ (P < 0.001). Odds ratio with HCQ intake was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13-0.83, P = 0.01) and the number needed to treat was 12. Conclusion: HCQ is safe at the recommended dose for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19.

Role of systemic corticosteroids in preventing hypoxia among patients with mild COVID-19: An observational study.

Use of systemic corticosteroids is well-established in COVID-19 patients with hypoxia; however, there is scant data on its role in patients with mild disease and prolonged symptoms as a measure to prevent disease progression. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of systemic corticosteroids in preventing hypoxia (SpO2 ≤ 93% on room-air) among mild COVID-19 patients. An observational study was conducted among symptomatic COVID-19 patients taking oral corticosteroids and attending institute teleconsultation facility between 10th-30th June 2021. Patients who were already on corticosteroids for other indication or required oxygen supplementation before or within 24-hours of initiation of corticosteroids were excluded. A total of 140 consecutive symptomatic COVID-19 patients were included. Higher baseline C-reactive protein (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06, p < 0.001) and early systemic corticosteroid (within 7 days) initiation (OR: 6.5, 95% CI: 2.1-20.1, p = 0.001) were independent risk factors for developing hypoxia (SpO2 ≤ 93%). Progression to hypoxia was significantly higher in patients who received corticosteroids before day 7 of illness (36.7%, 95% CI, 23.4-51.7%) compared to ≥ 7 of illness (14.3%, 95% CI, 7.8-23.2%) for persistent fever. Systemic corticosteroids within 7 days from symptom-onset were harmful and increased the risk of progression to hypoxia, whereas it may decrease the risk of progression when administered on or beyond 7 days in patients with mild COVID-19 and persistent symptoms. A well-designed randomised controlled trial is required to validate the findings.

COVID19 pneumonia with cavitation and cystic lung changes: multi-detector computed tomography spectrum of a gamut of etiologies.

The COVID19 pandemic since its beginning in March 2020, continues to wreak havoc causing great morbidity and mortality with each passing day. Ample literature is now available describing the imaging features of COVID19 infection; however, there is still a paucity of knowledge on the various causes of pulmonary cavitation and cystic lesions which can be associated with the virus albeit uncommonly. Cavitation in a COVID19 positive patient could be a consequence of the infection itself or a manifestation of sinister etiologies like coinfection with bacterial, fungal or mycobacterial pathogens, or incidental malignancy/metastasis. It could also be a result of multiple cavitating pulmonary nodules as a manifestation of septic emboli and infarct, Granulomatosis with polyangiitis or rheumatoid arthritis creating a diagnostic dilemma. Similarly, the causes of cystic air spaces on chest CT in COVID19 patient can be varied, either primarily due to the infection itself or secondary to coexistent cystic bronchiectasis, emphysema, interstitial lung disease or mechanical ventilation-associated barotrauma as well as complicated pulmonary cysts. Through this pictorial review, we aim to highlight these uncommon imaging manifestations of COVID19 and educate the reader regarding the various causes, MDCT features and differentials to be considered while approaching a cavity/cystic lesion amidst this pandemic.

Characteristics and outcomes of 231 COVID-19 cases admitted at a tertiary facility in India: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing pandemic because of COVID-19 has spread across countries, with varied clinical features and severity. Awareness of clinical course among asymptomatic and symptomatology in symptomatic cases is essential for patients' management as well as optimal utilization of health services (in resource limited settings) based on clinical status and risk factors. This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19 illness in the initial phase of the pandemic in India. METHODS: It was an observational study. Patients aged 18 years or more, with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, asymptomatic or mildly ill, were included. Patients with moderate-severe disease at admission or incomplete clinical symptomatology records were excluded. Data regarding demography, comorbidities, clinical features and course, treatment, results of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, chest radiographs, and laboratory parameters were obtained retrospectively from hospital records. The outcome was noted in terms of course, patients discharged, still admitted (at the time of the study), or death. RESULTS: Out of 231 cases, most were males (78.3%) with a mean age of 39.8 years. Comorbidities were present in 21.2% of patients, diabetes mellitus and hypertension being the most common. The most common symptoms were dry cough (81, 35%), fever (64, 27.7%), sore throat (36, 15.6%); asymptomatic infection noted in 108 (46.8%) patients. The presence of comorbidities was an independent predictor of symptomatic disease (OR-2.66; 95%CI 1.08-6.53, P = 0·03). None of the patients progressed to moderate-severe COVID-19, and there were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients remained asymptomatic whereas those with comorbidities were more likely to be symptomatic. Most with mild disease had a stable disease course, barring few complication in those with comorbidities. The pandemic continues to grow as large number of asymptomatic cases may go undiagnosed.

Rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based evaluation of COVID-19: A cross-sectional, diagnostic test accuracy study & its implications for COVID-19 management in India.

Background & objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has so far affected over 41 million people globally. The limited supply of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) kits and reagents has made meeting the rising demand for increased testing incompetent, worldwide. A highly sensitive and specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is the need of the hour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based test (index test) compared with a clinical reference standard (rRT-PCR). Methods: A cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Paired samples were taken for RDT and rRT-PCR (reference standard) from consecutive participants screened for COVID-19 to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the duration of illness and cycle threshold values. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement between the two tests. Results: Of the 330 participants, 77 were rRT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sixty four of these patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 81.8 and 99.6 per cent, respectively. The sensitivity of RDT was higher (85.9%) in participants with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Interpretation & conclusions: With an excellent specificity and moderate sensitivity, this RDT may be used to rule in COVID-19 in patients with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Large-scale testing based on this RDT across the country would result in quick detection, isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients.