Role of lung ultrasonography in the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, the use of lung ultrasonography (LUS) to diagnosis lung findings was evaluated in patients with suspected COVID-19 who were admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This observational clinical study was conducted in the ED of the Ankara City Hospital during the period April 1-30, 2020. Patients who were admitted to the ED were triaged as COVID-19 infected and who agreed to undergo LUS/LCT (lung computed tomography) were included in the study. RESULTS: Included in the study were 40 patients who had been prediagnosed with COVID-19. Pneumonia was detected with LCT in 32 (80%) patients, while the LUS examination identified pneumonia in 23 patients. The most common finding in LCT was ground-glass opacity (n = 29, 90.6%). Of the 23 patients with pneumonia findings in LUS, 15 (65.2%) had direct consolidation. Among the 32 patients who were found to have pneumonia as a result of LCT, 20 (62.5%) had signs of pneumonia on LUS examination, and 12 had no signs of pneumonia. In addition, 3 patients showed no signs of pneumonia with LCT, but they were misdiagnosed with pneumonia by LUS. The sensitivity of LUS in the diagnosis of pneumonia in the COVID-19 patients was 62.5%, while its specificity was 62.5%. In addition, its positive predictive value was 87.0%, and its negative predictive value was 29.4%. CONCLUSION: LUS may also be used in the diagnosis of pneumonia in COVID-19 patients because it is a valuable and accessible bedside diagnostic tool.

Safety and immunogenicity of inactive vaccines as booster doses for COVID-19 in Türkiye: A randomized trial.

Protective neutralizing antibody titers reduce in time after COVID-19 vaccinations, as in individuals who have had COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of CoronaVac and TURKOVAC vaccines used as a booster dose after CoronaVac primary vaccination. This double-blind, randomized, controlled, phase II, multicenter study included healthy male and female adults (18-60 years) who were vaccinated with two doses of CoronaVac vaccine and did not exceed the duration of at least 90 days and a maximum of 270 days from the second dose of vaccination. Among 236 eligible volunteers, 222 were recruited for randomization between July 12, 2021 and September 10, 2021; 108 and 114 were randomized to the TURKOVAC and CoronaVac arms, respectively. The primary endpoint was adverse events (AEs) (ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT04979949). On day 28, at the neutralizing antibody threshold of 1/6, the positivity rate reached 100% from 46.2% to 98.2% from 52.6% in the TURKOVAC and CoronaVac arms, respectively, against the Wuhan variant and the positivity rate reached 80.6% from 8.7% in the TURKOVAC arm vs. 71.9% from 14.0% in the CoronaVac arm against the Delta variant. IgG spike antibody positivity rate increased from 57.3% to 98.1% and from 57.9% to 97.4% in the TURKOVAC and CoronaVac arms, respectively. The TURKOVAC and CoronaVac arms were comparable regarding the frequency of overall AEs. Both vaccines administered as booster yielded higher antibody titers with acceptable safety profiles.

What is the context? The timing of the primary and booster doses for each vaccine differs.We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of CoronaVac and TURKOVAC vaccines used as homologous booster dose after CoronaVac primary vaccination.What is new? The neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan variant decreased below 1/6- the seropositivity threshold value- in more than 55% of the participants 4 months after administration of two doses of CoronaVac vaccine.Immunogenicity was re-stimulated and the neutralizing antibody titers increased rapidly and markedly with the administration of the CoronaVac or TURKOVAC as a booster dose 4 months after the second dose.While the increase in neutralizing antibodies against the Wuhan variant was similar with both CoronaVac and TURKOVAC, more antibodies developed against the Delta variant with TURKOVAC.What is the impact? With the Hybrid COV-RAPEL TR study, after the primary vaccination consisting of two doses of inactivated vaccine, antibody titers decreased in the long term; however, higher antibody titers are achieved than the primary vaccination after the booster dose administered after 4­6 month interval.Booster application with TURKOVAC provides antibodies at least as much as the CoronaVac booster dose, with an acceptable safety profile.

Effect of chronic lung diseases on mortality of prevariant COVID-19 pneumonia patients.

Background: The aim of the study is to assess the effect of chronic lung disease on mortality in patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of prevariant COVID-19 Pneumonia compared to patients without chronic lung disease. Research design and methods: A cohort of 1,549 patients admitted to the pandemic clinic with a COVID-19 Pneumonia diagnosis was analyzed. Group 1 and Group 2 were compared in terms of the treatment they received, admission to intensive care, mortality and follow-up parameters. Results: The patient group with COVID-19 and lung disease consisted of 231 participants (14.91%) (Group 1). The patient group with COVID-19 but without lung disease had 1,318 participants (85.19%). Group 1 cases were found to receive more oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation than Group 2 cases (p ≤ 0.001), Following univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses, it was determined that patients with chronic lung disease had a 25.76% higher mortality risk [OR: 25.763, 95% CI (Lower-Upper) (2.445-271.465), p = 0.007]. Conclusion: It was found that chronic lung disease contributed significantly to mortality in this study. Among chronic lung diseases, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), lung cancer and interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) were shown to be more effective than other chronic lung diseases in patients with prevariant COVID-19 population.

Comparison of anakinra and tocilizumab in management of severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies regarding effectiveness of anakinra and tocilizumab treatments in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have contradictory results. Furthermore, there is scarce comparative data regarding superiority of any agent. To further elucidate any superiority between these two agents, we retrospectively investigated and compared outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients of our inpatient cohort who received anakinra or tocilizumab. METHODS: This study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study. Hospitalized patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who had Brescia-COVID respiratory severity scale score ≥3 and hyperinflammation (defined as elevation of C reactive protein ≥50 g/L or ferritin ≥700 ng/mL) and received anakinra or tocilizumab in addition to standard care were enrolled in the study. Length of hospital stay after initiation of antiinflammatory treatment, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit admission, mortality were set as primary outcomes and compared between tocilizumab and anakinra recipients after propensity score matching. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients were placed in each group after propensity score matching. In the anakinra group, relative risk reduction for intensive care unit admission was 50% when compared to the tocilizumab group and the number needed to treat to avert an intensive care unit admission was 3 (95% CI, 2-5). In terms of mortality, a 52% relative risk reduction was observed with anakinra treatment and the number needed to treat to avert an intensive care unit admission was 8 (95% CI, 4-50). Significantly more patients were observed to receive glucocorticoids in the anakinra group. DISCUSSION: Anakinra administration in severe COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with better survival and greater clinical improvement compared to the tocilizumab administration in our study. Increased rate of glucocorticoid use in the anakinra group might have contributed to better outcomes.

Reducing length of hospital stay with colchicine.

INTRODUCTION: Colchicine is an ancient agent with well-known anti-inflammatory effects and commonly used in treatment of hyperinflammatory conditions. It has been argued that colchicine could be an appropriate treatment option in COVID-19 to control hyperinflammatory response. Here in this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of colchicine on outcomes of COVID-19 in our inpatient cohort. METHODOLOGY: In this retrospective cohort study, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were investigated. Demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms, laboratory findings on admission and discharge, baseline and seventh day oxygenation status, rates of mortality, intensive care unit admission, administration of other anti-inflammatory treatments and length of hospital stay were compared between patients who received standard of care medications and who received colchicine additionally. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the study (171 standard of care, 165 standard of care plus colchicine). The median length of hospital stay in colchicine group was significantly shorter. Rates of admission to intensive care unit, anti-inflammatory treatment administration and mortality did not differentiate between standard of care and colchicine groups. However, reduced rates of mortality and ICU admission were observed in patients who received colchicine with a dose of 1 mg/day when compared to patients who received 0.5 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that COVID-19 patients who received colchicine in addition to standard of care had shorter hospital stay. Our results further support the use of colchicine in treatment of COVID-19, particularly with a dose of 1 mg/day.

Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BRCSS) and Quick SOFA (qSOFA) score are most useful in showing severity in COVID-19 patients.

In this study, we compare the predictive value of clinical scoring systems that are already in use in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BCRSS), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Multilobular infiltration, hypo-Lymphocytosis, Bacterial coinfection, Smoking history, hyper-Tension, and Age (MuLBSTA) and scoring system for reactive hemophagocytic syndrome (HScore), for determining the severity of the disease. Our aim in this study is to determine which scoring system is most useful in determining disease severity and to guide clinicians. We classified the patients into two groups according to the stage of the disease (severe and non-severe) and adopted interim guidance of the World Health Organization. Severe cases were divided into a group of surviving patients and a deceased group according to the prognosis. According to admission values, the BCRSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore were evaluated at admission using the worst parameters available in the first 24 h. Of the 417 patients included in our study, 46 (11%) were in the severe group, while 371 (89%) were in the non-severe group. Of these 417 patients, 230 (55.2%) were men. The median (IQR) age of all patients was 44 (25) years. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, BRCSS in the highest tertile (HR 6.1, 95% CI 2.105-17.674, p = 0.001) was determined as an independent predictor of severe disease in cases of COVID-19. In multivariate analyses, qSOFA was also found to be an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 (HR 4.757, 95% CI 1.438-15.730, p = 0.011). The area under the curve (AUC) of the BRCSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore was 0.977, 0.961, 0.958, 0.860, and 0.698, respectively. Calculation of the BRCSS and qSOFA at the time of hospital admission can predict critical clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, and their predictive value is superior to that of HScore, MuLBSTA, and SOFA. Our prediction is that early interventions for high-risk patients, with early identification of high-risk group using BRCSS and qSOFA, may improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

Development and validation of nomogram to predict severe illness requiring intensive care follow up in hospitalized COVID-19 cases.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of severe COVID-19 patients who will need intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up and providing rapid, aggressive supportive care may reduce mortality and provide optimal use of medical resources. We aimed to develop and validate a nomogram to predict severe COVID-19 cases that would need ICU follow-up based on available and accessible patient values. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 15, 2020, and June 15, 2020, were enrolled in this retrospective study with 35 variables obtained upon admission considered. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to select potential predictive parameters using 1000 bootstrap samples. Afterward, a nomogram was developed with 5 variables selected from multivariable analysis. The nomogram model was evaluated by Area Under the Curve (AUC) and bias-corrected Harrell's C-index with 95% confidence interval, Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit test, and calibration curve analysis. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1022 patients, 686 cases without missing data were used to construct the nomogram. Of the 686, 104 needed ICU follow-up. The final model includes oxygen saturation, CRP, PCT, LDH, troponin as independent factors for the prediction of need for ICU admission. The model has good predictive power with an AUC of 0.93 (0.902-0.950) and a bias-corrected Harrell's C-index of 0.91 (0.899-0.947). Hosmer-Lemeshow test p-value was 0.826 and the model is well-calibrated (p = 0.1703). CONCLUSION: We developed a simple, accessible, easy-to-use nomogram with good distinctive power for severe illness requiring ICU follow-up. Clinicians can easily predict the course of COVID-19 and decide the procedure and facility of further follow-up by using clinical and laboratory values of patients available upon admission.

Predictive values of biochemical markers as early indicators for severe COVID-19 cases in admission

Aim: COVID-19 is a pandemic that causes high morbidity and mortality, especially in severe patients. In this study, we aimed to search and explain the relationship between biochemical markers, which are more common, easily available and applicable to diagnose and to stage the disease. Materials &methods: In this study, 609 patients were evaluated retrospectively. 11 biochemical parameters were included in analysis to explain the relationship with severity of disease. Results: Nearly, all the parameters that have been evaluated in this study were statistically valuable as a predictive parameter for severe disease. Areas under the curve of blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/albumin ratio (BAR), CALL score and lymphocyte/C-reactive protein ratio were 0.795, 0.778 and 0.770. The BUN/BAR and neutrophil/albumin ratios provide important prognostic information for decision-making in severe patients with COVID-19. Conclusion: High BUN/BAR and neutrophil/albumin ratios may be a better predictor of severity COVID-19 than other routinely used parameters in admission.

Which hematological markers have predictive value as early indicators of severe COVID-19 cases in the emergency department?

Background/aim: Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a pandemic infectious disease that causes morbidity and mortality. As a result of high mortality rate among the severe COVID-19 patients, the early detection of the disease stage and early effective interventions are very important in reducing mortality. Hence, it is important to differentiate severe and nonsevere cases from each other. To date, there are no proven diagnostic or prognostic parameters that can be used in this manner. Due to the expensive and not easily accessible tests that are performed for COVID-19, researchers are investigating some parameters that can be easily used. In some recent studies, hematological parameters have been evaluated to see if they can be used as predictive parameters. Materials and methods: In the current study, almost all hematological parameters were used, including the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, monocyte/lymphocyte ratio, mean platelet volume to lymphocyte ratio, mean platelet volume to platelet ratio, plateletcrit, and D-dimer/fibrinogen ratio, neutrophil/lymphocyte/platelet scoring system, and systemic immune-inflammation index. A total of 750 patients, who were admitted to Ankara City Hospital due to COVID-19, were evaluated in this study. The patients were classified into 2 groups according to their diagnosis (confirmed or probable) and into 2 groups according to the stage of the disease (nonsevere or severe). Results: The values of the combinations of inflammatory markers and other hematological parameters in all of the patients with severe COVID-19 were calculated, and the predicted values of these parameters were compared. According to results of the study, nearly all of the hematological parameters could be used as potential diagnostic biomarkers for subsequent analysis, because the area under the curve (AUC) was higher than 0.50, especially for the DFR and NLR, which had the highest AUC among the parameters. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that, the parameters those enhanced from complete blood count, which is a simple laboratory test, can help to identify and classify COVID-19 patients into non-severe to severe groups.

Transport of awake hypoxemic probable COVID 19 patients in the prone position.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the effects of transport with prone position on hypoxemia in hypoxemic and awake probable COVID 19 pneumonia patients. METHODS: Hypoxic and awake patients with probable COVID 19 pneumonia who were referred to the Ankara City Hospital Emergency Department from 1 April to 31 May 2020 were included in this prospective study. Patients were transported in prone position and fixed on the stretcher. During the transport, patients continued receiving 2 l per minute oxygen with nasal cannula. Arterial blood gases were obtained from the patients before and after transport. The transport time was recorded as minutes. The primary outcome of the study is the increase of partial oxygen value in the arterial blood gas of patients after transport. RESULTS: It was found that pO2 and SpO2 end values were statistically significantly higher in the patient group compared to the initial values. In the group with transport duration of more than 15 min, a difference was found between the initial and end values in pO2 and SpO2 parameters similar to the whole group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the initial and end values in the group with transport duration of 15 min or below. CONCLUSIONS: Awake hypoxemic patients can be transported without complications in prone position during transport. Transports more than 15 min, prone position may be recommended because the partial oxygen pressure of the patients increases.

Objective evaluation of the nasal mucosal secretion in COVID-19 patients with anosmia.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a new disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The olfactory dysfunction linked to COVID-19 is not associated with rhinorrhea but there is no objective evaluation. AIMS: To evaluate nasal mucosal secretion objectively in COVID-19 patients with anosmia. METHODS: Fifty-two COVID-19 patients with anosmia and 51 healthy individuals included. Anosmia was diagnosed by subjective questionnaires. Nasal Schirmer test was done to the left and the right nasal cavity separately. RESULTS: All patients had anosmia and 82.6% had gustatory dysfunction. In group 1, the mean of the nasal Schirmer test results in the right cavity was 12.4 mm, 12.01 mm in the left nasal cavity. The median wetting distance (right plus left divided by two) was calculated 12.21 mm. In group 2, the mean of the nasal Schirmer test results in the right cavity was 12.1 mm, 11.8 mm in the left nasal cavity. The median wetting distance (right plus left divided by two) was calculated11.97 mm. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of nasal schirmer. CONCLUSION: Olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction are the two of the unknown for this disease. We evaluated the nasal mucosa secretions in COVID-19 patients with anosmia objectively to evaluate if there is inflammation in the nasal mucosa. We found no difference between healthy individuals. According to our study, SARS-CoV-2 causes anosmia without causing nasal mucosal inflammation. Invasion of the olfactory bulb and central nervous system by SARS-CoV-2 may lead to anosmia in COVID-19, which may cause olfactory dysfunction.

Are type 1 interferons treatment in Multiple Sclerosis as a potential therapy against COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus (COVID-19), (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)) has been spreading worldwide since its first identification in China. It has been speculated that patients with comorbidities and elderly patients could be at high risk for the pandemic reasoned respiratory insufficiency and death. At first, it was thought that the patients who use immunmodulator therapy could be even at higher risks of disease complications. However, it has been also speculated about that using immunmodulators could be an advantage for the clinical prognosis. Therefore, several immunmodulators are currently being tested as potential treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: In this paper we report on a patient that has been treated with type 1 interferon for multiple sclerosis who developed COVID-19. RESULTS: Despite using immunmodulator, the symptoms of the patient at hospitalization were mild and he did not show elevated D-dimer, and there was no lymphopenia. He was discharged to home-quarantine with no symptoms. DISCUSSION: This report supports the idea of using type 1 interferon in the treatment could be effective in COVID-19 affected patients.