ABSTRACT
Introduction: and importance: There are increasing case reports of mucormycosis in patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Herein, we describe the case of mucormycosis after recovery from Covid-19. Case presentation: The patient was a 73 years old woman with a history of chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia that referred to the emergency department with clinical presentation of Covid-19. On the third day of admission, the Covid-19 PCR test was negative, but the patient presented headache and pain in her upper jaw. Physical examination showed fever, erythema, and tenderness in the right cheek. Emergency biopsy and culture from sinus by subsection to mucormycosis conducted. and the diagnosis of mucormycosis was confirmed by the positive result of biopsy and culture. Despite anti-fungal treatment with Amphotericin B, patient developed severe diarrhea and became hemodynamically unstable. In the stool analysis, Strongyloides stercoralis was reported. Unfortunately, patient was expired on day thirty-two of this admission. Clinical discussion: Mucormycosis is a dangerous infection, and its rapid diagnosis is so important. On the other hand, Covid-19 may associated with many nonspecific sign and symptoms. These finding may overlap with other infections.In patients with prolonged mucormycosis infection, the development of strongyloidiasis should not be neglected. A single dose of ivermectin as strongyloidiasis prophylaxis should be given if the duration of the illness is prolonged. Conclusion: Clinicians should consider mucormycosis and its complications after Covid-19 treatment in diabetic and immunocompromised patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A protective effect of vitamin D against COVID-19 infection is under investigation. We aimed to analyze the effect of vitamin D sufficiency on the clinical outcomes of patients infected with COVID-19. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we analyzed the vitamin D levels of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to Razi Hospital (an infectious disease referral center in Mazandaran province in northern Iran) from February to March 2020. Overall, a cutoff point of 30 ng/mL was used for the definition of vitamin D sufficiency. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three patients were analyzed in this study who had laboratory documentation of a 25(OH) D level at the time of hospitalization. The vitamin D levels of the patients were 27.19 ± 20.17 ng/mL. In total, 62.7% (n = 96) of the patients had a 25(OH) D level of less than 30 ng/mL and 37.25% (n = 57) had a 25(OH) D level of more than 30 ng/mL. In total, 49% (n = 75) of the patients suffered from at least one underlying disease. The univariate and multivariable regression showed that vitamin D sufficiency was not associated with a statistically significant lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 such as duration of hospitalization and severity of infection (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient vitamin D levels were not found to be protective against adverse clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19. Chronic disorders in COVID-19 patients were found to have greater relevance than vitamin D levels in determining the adverse outcomes of the infection. Further studies are needed to determine the role of vitamin D level in predicting the outcomes of COVID-19 infection.