Anxiety and depression levels of healthcare workers during Covid-19 pandemic.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), which causes a pandemic in the world, has started to appear in turkey since march 2020. Healthcare workers are at the top of the groups most at risk for covid-19 infection, which can have a negative impact on psychological state. Objectives: It was aimed to evaluate anxiety and depression levels among healthcare workers. Methods: this cross-sectional study performed via an online survey in april 2020. Participants answered questions about sociodemographic features, personal views and experiences about covid-19 and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (hads). Results: A total of 300 healthcare workers,193 men and 107 women, participated in the survey. According to hads, 44.6% of participants scored above anxiety and 68.2% scored above depression cut-off points. Being younger than 50 and taking care of covid-19 patients in hospitals were independently associated with anxiety risk. Female gender, young age (less than 50) and having comorbidity were independent risk factors for depression. Conclusion: Healthcare workers were at high risk of anxiety and depression during covid-19 outbreak. For this reason, psychological support should be given, especially to the group with high risk.

Use of Radiology, D-Dimer, and Mean Platelet Volume Combination as a Prognostic Marker in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease-19 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The search for biomarkers that could help in predicting disease prognosis in the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is still high on the agenda. OBJECTIVE: To find out the efficacy of D-dimer and mean platelet volume (MPV) combination as a prognostic marker in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with bilateral infiltration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study design: Retrospective observational cohort. Patients who were presented to our hospital between March 16, 2020 and June 07, 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome of the study was specified as the need for intensive care, while the secondary outcomes were duration of treatment and hospitalization. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analyzes were carried out to assess the efficacy of D-dimer and MPV parameters as prognostic markers. RESULTS: Between the mentioned dates, 575 of 1,564 patients were found to be compatible with COVID-19, and the number of patients who were included in the study was 306. The number of patients who developed the need for intensive care was 40 (13.1%). For serum D-dimer levels in assessing the need for intensive care, the area under the curve (AUC) was found to be 0.707 (95% CI: 0.620-0.794). The AUC for MPV was 0.694 (95% CI: 0.585-0.803), when D-dimer was ≥1.0 mg/L. When patients with a D-dimer level of ≥1.0 mg/L were divided into two groups considering the MPV cut-off value as 8.1, the rate of intensive care transport was found to be significantly higher in patients with an MPV of ≥8.1 fL compared to those with an MPV of <8.1 fL (32.6 vs. 16.0%, p = 0.043). For the prognostic efficacy of the combination of D-dimer ≥ 1.0 mg/L and MPV ≥ 8.1 fL in determining the need for intensive care, following values were determined: sensitivity: 57.7%, specificity: 70.8%, positive predictive value (PPV): 32.0%, negative predictive value (NPV): 84.0%, and accuracy: 63.0%. When D-dimer was ≥1.0, the median duration of treatment in MPV <8.1 and ≥8.1 groups was 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0-10.0] days for both groups (p = 0.64). The median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7.0 (IQR: 5.0-10.5) days in the MPV <8.1 group, while it was 8.5 (IQR: 5.0-16.3) days in the MPV ≥ 8.1 group (p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients with a serum D-dimer level of at least 1.0 mg/L and radiological bilateral infiltration at hospitalization, if the MPV value is ≥8.1, we could predict the need for intensive care with moderate efficacy and a relatively high negative predictive value. However, no correlation could be found between this combined marker and the duration of treatment and the LOS.

Potential treatment of COVID-19

Following the first reported cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology at the end of 2019 in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China, the causative agent was demonstrated to be a new coronavirus that has not been defined in humans before. The World Health Organization (WHO) named this virus as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease caused by the virus as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). The disease spread rapidly to other countries through human-to-human transmission, and WHO declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of April 2020, the number of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related deaths continue to increase rapidly worldwide. The main reason for the increase in the rate of infection is person-to-person transmission, while the main reason for the increase in mortality rate is the lack of a proven medical treatment specific to COVID-19 and the severe course of the disease in the elderly with low immunity. While a vast majority of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or recover after displaying mild symptoms, hospitalization is required in 14% of cases and severe disease requiring intensive care admission is seen in 5% of the infected individuals. WHO and national guidelines do not make clear recommendations regarding treatments for symptomatic patients. Currently, there is no vaccine or specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19, however supportive care, isolation and protective measures and experimental drugs/treatments are being used for the management of COVID-19. Medical treatments being used for COVID-19, aim to prevent the entry of the virus into the cell, to inhibit or reduce its replication, and to suppress the increased inflammatory response. In addition, "convalescent" plasma, which includes antibodies of patients who were completely recovered from the infection, is among the treatment options.