Spontaneous Loculated Pneumomediastinum in a COVID-19-Infected Patient.

While we are still learning about COVID-19 affecting people, older persons and persons with underlying diseases such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes mellitus (DM) appear to develop serious illness and more complications often than others. In this report, we presented a patient with spontaneous pneumomediastinum after COVID-19. The patient was a 61-year-old man with a history of DM, hypertension, and heart failure, who has been infected with COVID-19. The patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 based on RT-PCR analysis of nasopharyngeal samples, and chest X-ray showed patchy infiltration upper and lower lobes bilaterally. By day 4, imaging was repeated, performed due to exacerbation of pleuritic chest pain, decreased O2 saturation (80%), and coughing that revealed multiple ground-glass opacities bilaterally, and interlobular septal thickening with emphysema in most of the left upper lobe and a small part of right upper lobe which led to severe spontaneous left pneumomediastinum and parenchymal consolidation was also observed. The combination of a chest tube, antibiotics (vancomycin 1 gr/bid and meropenem 1 g/bid), and antiviral (hydroxychloroquine 200 mg/bid and atazanavir 300 mg/daily) was prescribed, and continued treatment with antiviral and appropriate care for pneumomediastinum was successful. Spontaneous pneumomediastinum in the context of COVID-19 should be considered as a prognostic factor in favor of worsening diseases.

Rapid Detection Test for COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers and the Role of Personal Protective Equipment.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we assessed the prevalence of positive rapid detection test (RDT) among healthcare workers (HCWs) and evaluated the role of personal protective equipment (PPE) and knowledge of the pandemic. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study conducted between August 2020 and October 2020 in a tertiary referral center (Tehran, Iran), we enrolled 117 physicians, nurses, and other HCWs (OHCWs)-aides, helpers, and medical waste handlers-regularly working in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wards. The RDT kit was utilized to reveal recent infection; data on demographics, PPE use and availability, and knowledge of the pandemic was collected through pre-defined questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 24.8% (95% CI: 16.8-32.7%) of HCWs had positive RDTs. The more PPE was available and used, the less the chance of positive RDT was (OR: 0.63 [0.44-0.91], P = 0.014 and 0.63 [0.41-0.96], P = 0.030). The same was true for the knowledge of prevention and adhering to preventive rules (OR: 0.44 [0.24-0.81], P = 0.008 and 0.47 [0.25-0.89], P = 0.020). OHCWs had the highest prevalence of positive RDT, while they had more shifts per month, less accessibility to PPE, and less knowledge of the pandemic than physicians. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that HCWs should have a thorough knowledge of the pandemic along with using PPE properly and rationally. Furthermore, adhering to preventive regulations plays a crucial role in HCWs' safety. It is also noteworthy that shifts should be arranged logically to manage exposures, with a special attention being paid to OHCWs.

Comparing efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and methylprednisolone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: During a prospective cohort study, hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 received intravenous methylprednisolone (250-500 mg daily up to three doses), weight-based tocilizumab (maximum 800 mg, one or two doses as daily interval) or dexamethasone (8 mg daily). The primary outcome was time to onset of clinical response. Secondary outcomes were improvement rate of oxygen saturation and CRP, need for ICU admission, duration of hospitalization and 28-day mortality. During study, adverse events of the treatments were recorded. RESULTS: Although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.090), clinical response occurred faster in the tocilizumab group than other groups (10 vs. 16 days). Clinical response was detected in 74.19%, 81.25%, and 60% of patients in the methylprednisolone, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone groups respectively (p = 0.238). Based on the Cox regression analysis and considering dexamethasone as the reference group, HR (95% CI) of clinical response was 1.08 (0.65-1.79) and 1.46 (0.89-2.39) in the methylprednisolone and tocilizumab groups respectively. Improvement rate of oxygen saturation and CRP was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.791 and p = 0.372 respectively). Also need for ICU admission and 28-day mortality was comparable between the groups (p = 0.176 and p = 0.143 respectively). Compared with methylprednisolone, tocilizumab caused more sleep disturbances (p = 0.019). Other adverse events were comparable among patients in the groups. CONCLUSION: When or where access to tocilizumab is a problem, methylprednisolone may be considered as an alternative for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.

The Persistence Time of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: In late December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), spread to almost all countries worldwide. The outbreak of this virus has been confirmed on 19th February, 2020, in Iran. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the time of viral RNA clearance in swab and serum samples of COVID-19 patients having received different medications. We also evaluated different factors that may affect viral RNA persistence in patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In March 2020, twenty-one hospitalized COVID-19 patients participated in this prospective study. All patients received antiviral agents in their routine care. Throat swabs and blood samples were obtained from all patients in different intervals, including day 3 or 5, day 7, day 10, and finally, 14 days after the first positive real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCT) test. RESULTS: The median time from the symptom onset (SO) to the first negative rRT-PCR results for throat swabs and serum samples of COVID-19 patients was 18 and 14 days, respectively. These times were more significant in patients with lymphopenia, oxygen saturation ≤ 90%, and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study highlights that SASR-CoV-2 RNA was not detectable in the upper respiratory tract for longer than three weeks. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 may persist for a long period of time in the respiratory than in the serum samples. This study supports the idea that in limited resource settings, the patients should be tested earlier than three weeks for discharge management.

Efficacy of a multiple-indication antiviral herbal drug (Saliravira®) for COVID-19 outpatients: A pre-clinical and randomized clinical trial study.

BACKGROUND: The scientific researches on COVID-19 pandemic topics are headed to an explosion of scientific literature. Despite these global efforts, the efficient treatment of patients is an in-progress challenge. Based on a meta-study of published shreds of evidence about compounds and their botanic sources in the last six decades, a novel multiple-indication herbal compound (Saliravira®) has been developed. Based on the antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and immune-enhancing properties of its ingredients, we hypothesized that Saliravira® has the potential to act as an antiviral agent, accelerate treatment, and reduce undesirable effects of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial, COVID-19 outpatients were included by RT-PCR test or diagnosis of physicians according to the symptoms. Participants were randomly divided into intervention and control groups to receive Saliravira® package plus routine treatments of COVID-19 or routine treatments of COVID-19 alone, respectively. Saliravira® package includes tablets, nasal-sinuses spray, oral-pharynx spray, and inhaler drops. The treatment was for 10 days and followed up till 23 days after admission. RESULTS: On the 8th day, the "mean reduction rates" of viral load of the patients in the intervention group was 50% lower compared to the control group with a p-value < 0.05. The improvement of 10 out of 14 COVID-19 symptoms in the intervention group was significantly accelerated. The mean treatment duration of patients in the intervention group was 4.9 days less than the control group. In addition, no patients in the intervention group were hospitalized compared to 28% of the control group needed to be hospitalized.

Comparing efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of COVID-19: a three-arm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Corticosteroids are commonly used in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The goals of the present study were to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 were assigned to intravenous low-dose (8 mg once daily), intermediate-dose (8 mg twice daily) or high-dose (8 mg thrice daily) dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge. Clinical response, 60-day survival and adverse effects were the main outcomes of the study. RESULTS: In the competing risk survival analysis, patients in the low-dose group had a higher clinical response than the high-dose group when considering death as a competing risk (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.23-3.33, p = 0.03). Also, the survival was significantly longer in the low-dose group than the high-dose group (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.15-0.83, p = 0.02). Leukocytosis and hyperglycemia were the most common side effects of dexamethasone. Although the incidence was not significantly different between the groups, some adverse effects were numerically higher in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups than in the low-dose group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher doses of dexamethasone not only failed to improve efficacy but also resulted in an increase in the number of adverse events and worsen survival in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 compared to the low-dose dexamethasone. (IRCT20100228003449N31).

Safety and effectiveness of high-dose vitamin C in patients with COVID-19: a randomized open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin C is an essential water-soluble nutrient that functions as a key antioxidant and has been proven to be effective for boosting immunity. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy of adding high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) to the regimens for patients with severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, and controlled trial was conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 infection. The case and control treatment groups each consisted of 30 patients. The control group received lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine and the case group received HDIVC (6 g daily) added to the same regimen. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between two groups with respect to age and gender, laboratory results, and underlying diseases. The mean body temperature was significantly lower in the case group on the 3rd day of hospitalization (p = 0.001). Peripheral capillary oxygen saturations (SpO2) measured at the 3rd day of hospitalization was also higher in the case group receiving HDIVC (p = 0.014). The median length of hospitalization in the case group was significantly longer than the control group (8.5 days vs. 6.5 days) (p = 0.028). There was no significant difference in SpO2 levels at discharge time, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find significantly better outcomes in the group who were treated with HDIVC in addition to the main treatment regimen at discharge. Trial registration irct.ir (IRCT20200411047025N1), April 14, 2020.

Comparing outcomes of hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.

BACKGROUND: The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2 ≥ 90%) and severe disease (SpO2 < 90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p = < 0.001 at day 7, HR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p = < 0.001 at day 14 and HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p = < 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR = 6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p = < 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5 ± 4 vs. 8 ± 6 days, p < 0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss. CONCLUSION: Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2 < 90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.