ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is a concerning global pandemic. Common manifestations are fever and respiratory symptoms. In addition, recent studies reported dermatological manifestations as extrapulmonary signs. One of these is telogen effluvium which is related to post COVID-19 comorbidities. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of telogen effluvium among COVID-19 patients. This observational cross-sectional study included 198 patients who were admitted for COVID-19. The PCR test was performed to detect positive cases. After discharge, all patients were interviewed about hair loss. Of these patients, 79 were male (39.9%), and 119 were female (60.1%). The age ranged from 18 to 85 years old. 48 patients showed hair loss. Telogen effluvium (TE) is one of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 leads to more medications and stress situations, which trigger TE.
Subject(s)
Alopecia Areata , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alopecia/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Severity of Illness Index , Young AdultABSTRACT
Diastolic dysfunction has been reported in patients with COVID-19. Due to the role of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in the diagnosis of heart failure, this study investigated the relationship between serum NT-proBNP levels and diastolic heart failure in patients with COVID-19. This descriptive-analytical study was performed at Ayatollah Rouhani Hospital in Babol. Fifty-two patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, who were admitted to the ICU, were included in this study. The primary outcome was about the relationship and predictive role of NT-proBNP and diastolic heart failure in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with pro BNP > 125 pg/ml underwent echocardiography, and the relationship between echocardiographic indices and NT-proBNP was assessed as the secondary outcome. Our study showed that plasma NT-proBNP levels in patients with increased diastolic dysfunction were associated with disease severity. It was also found that the cut-off point of NT-proBNP = 799 pg/ml could be a predictor of diastolic dysfunction grades two and three. In this study, patients with a serum NT-proBNP level > 799 had 37 times higher chance of having diastolic dysfunction than those with a serum NT-proBNP < 799. Patients with NT-proBNP > 556 had RV_EA > 2 in echocardiography, indicating increased right-sided filling pressures. Despite the confounding factors in the interpretation of the NT-proBNP level in COVID-19, its level can be used to estimate the presence of high-grade diastolic heart failure on the left side and the right side of the heart and the presence of high filling pressures. Lower levels of NT-proBNP are associated with right-sided diastolic failure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: IFNßs are known as one of the most promising drugs used for COVID-19 treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effects of treatment with INF-ß 1-a (interferon beta-1a) and IFN-ß 1-b (interferon beta-1b) on COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical treatment outcomes of 100 patients with COVID-19 who received IFN-ß 1-a and IFN-ß 1-b during their hospitalization period. The rate of discharge from the hospital was considered equal to the clinical improvement and then evaluated as a primary outcome. Moreover, mortality, ICU admission and length of ICU stay, frequency of intubation and use of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization, laboratory factors, and medications were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median discharge time of IFN-ß 1a recipients was approximately equal to that of IFN-ß 1-b recipients as 9 (5-10) days and 7 (5-11) days, respectively (HR = 2.43, P = 0.75). Mortality rate was also estimated as 10% among IFN-ß 1-a recipients and 14% among IFN-ß 1-b recipients, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). ICU hospitalization rate for the IFN-ß 1-a recipients and IFN-ß 1-b recipients was 26% and 36%, respectively. In addition, no significant difference was found between these two intervention groups in terms of ICU length of stay (1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-4.25(, respectively,) P = 0.357). There was no significant difference between the two study groups in terms of frequency of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of shortening the disease time, clinical improvements and other outcomes.