Long-term follow-up and health-related quality of life in COVID-19 patients treated in hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the persistence of symptoms and health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease-2019 patients. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted from April to September 2020 at Health Sciences University, Yedikule Chest Diseases Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, and comprised patients of either gender who had to be hospitalised and treated for coronavirus disease-2019. Those who had spent <3 months (46-90 days) post-discharge formed Group 1, those having spent 3-6 were in Group 2, while those with >6 months post-discharge were in Group 3. Data was collected over the telephone Using the EuroQol's quality of life scale with 5 dimensions and 5 levels. The variables likely to affect the persistence of symptoms and the quality of life questionnaire scores were analysed using SPSS 16. RESULTS: Of the 225 subjects, 135(60%) were male and 90(40%) were female. The overall mean age was 55.7±19.91 years. There were 85(37.8%) participants in Group 1, 83(36.9%) in Group 2, and 57(25.3%) in Group 3. The age (p=0.09) and gender (p=0.23) distribution across the groups had no significant difference. Patients were called on an average 131.72±58.9 days after discharge (range: 46-279 days). Only 52 (23.1%) patients continued to show symptoms. Anxiety was the domain in which most patients 64(28.4%) reported deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who have had coronavirus disease-2019COVID-19 after a long follow-up period did not show any symptoms or had any significant deterioration in their quality of life.

Does Previous Anti-thrombotic Use Affect the Course of Coronavirus Disease-2019?

Introduction: Proinflammatory cytokines, produced as an immune response in severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection, activate the coagulation cascade as well. In this study, we investigated the difference in the clinical course of patients who had been already using anti-thrombotic therapy before coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) for any reason compared to the group who had not. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study;patients who were hospitalized between March 11 and July 1, 2020 were divided into two main groups as who had been on anti-thrombotic therapy for any indication use previously at the time of admission or who had not been on anti-thrombotic therapy at the time of admission, and their selected clinical parameters were compared. Results: After analyzing the study population of 124 patients with a homogeneous distribution in terms of age and gender, the comparison of anti-thrombotic users and non-users showed no significant difference in hospitalization. There was a statistically significant decrease in mechanical ventilation apply rate, intensive care unit duration and mortality rate between the group using anti-thrombotic compared to the group not using it (p<0.05). Conclusion: It has already been shown that COVID-19 patients are more prone to thromboembolic events as it activates the coagulation cascade with the cytokine storm it creates and thus the mortality of COVID-19 infection increases significantly. Parallel to this fact the results of our study demonstrated that using anti-thrombotic therapy for any reason may affect the bad prognosis of the disease positively. [ FROM AUTHOR]

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort.

Background and objectives: Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity. Methods: Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11-July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation. Results: We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5-12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (ß [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31-7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (ß [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56-4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (ß [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02-1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70-5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28-6.75]; p = 0.011). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort

Background and objectives Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity. Methods Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11–July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation. Results We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients;57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5–12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (β [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31–7.11];p = 0.001), favipiravir (β [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56–4.55];p = 0.001) and HCQ (β [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02–1.67];p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70–5.35];p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28–6.75];p = 0.011). Conclusion Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

The predictors of COVID-19 mortality in a nationwide cohort of Turkish patients.

The COVID-19-related death rate varies between countries and is affected by various risk factors. This multicenter registry study was designed to evaluate the mortality rate and the related risk factors in Turkey. We retrospectively evaluated 1500 adults with COVID-19 from 26 centers who were hospitalized between March 11 and July 31, 2020. In the study group, 1041 and 459 cases were diagnosed as definite and highly probable cases, respectively. There were 993 PCR-positive cases (66.2%). Among all cases, 1144 (76.3%) were diagnosed with non-severe pneumonia, whereas 212 (14.1%) had severe pneumonia. Death occurred in 67 patients, corresponding to a mortality rate of 4.5% (95% CI:3.5-5.6). The univariate analysis demonstrated that various factors, including male sex, age ≥65 years and the presence of dyspnea or confusion, malignity, chronic obstructive lung disease, interstitial lung disease, immunosuppressive conditions, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, and sepsis, were positively associated with mortality. Favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were not associated with survival. Following multivariate analysis, male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were found to be independent risk factors for mortality. Among the biomarkers, procalcitonin levels on the 3rd-5th days of admission showed the strongest associations with mortality (OR: 6.18; 1.6-23.93). This study demonstrated that the mortality rate in hospitalized patients in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was a serious threat and that those patients with male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were at increased risk of mortality; therefore, such patients should be closely monitored.

The comparison of favipiravir and lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19 treatment

Background/aim: SARS-CoV-2, a ribonucleic acid coronavirus, rapidly spread worldwide within a short timeframe. Although different antiviral, antiinflammatory, and immunomodulatory drugs are used, current evidence is insufficient as to which drug is more efficient. Our study compared favipiravir and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) therapies in inpatient care for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Materials and methods: Demographic data, test results, treatments, and latest status of patients receiving inpatient COVID-19 pneumonia therapy were recorded. The initial favipiravir and LPV/RTV receiving groups were compared regarding the need for intensive care units (ICU) and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed by including variables showing significant differences as a result of paired comparisons into the model. Results: Of the 204 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, 59 (28.9%), 131 (64.2%), and 14 were administered LPV/RTV, favipiravir, and favipiravir with LPV/RTV, respectively. No difference was found in age, sex, presence of comorbidity, and tocilizumab, systemic corticosteroid, and plasma therapy use between patients administered with these three different treatment regimens. The mean mortality age of the patients was 71 ± 14.3 years, which was substantially greater than that of the survivors (54.2 ± 15.5 years). Compared with patients administered with LPV/RTV, ICU admission and mortality rates were lower in patients administered with favipiravir. CK-MB, AST, CRP, LDH, and creatinine levels were higher, whereas lymphocyte counts were lower in patients who died. Age, AST, CRP, LDH, and neutrophil counts were higher in patients needing ICU, and eosinophil and lymphocyte counts were significantly lower. Logistic regression analysis showed that favipiravir use independently decreased mortality (p = 0.006). Conclusion: The use of favipiravir was more effective than LPV/RTV in reducing mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.