Impact of a Psychiatric Consultation Program on COVID-19 Patients: An Experimental Study.

OBJECTIVE: Following the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the importance of addressing acute stress induced by psychological burdens of diseases became apparent. This study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of a new mode of psychiatric intervention designed to target similar psychological crises. METHODS: Participants included 32 out of 114 COVID inpatients at a hospital in Daegu, Korea, who were assessed between March 30 and April 7, 2020. Multiple scales for screening psychological difficulties such as depressed mood, anxiety, insomnia, acute stress, and suicidality were done. Psychological problem evaluations and interventions were conducted in the form of consultations to alleviate participants' psychological challenges via telepsychiatry. The interventions' effects, as well as clinical improvements before and after the intervention, were analyzed. RESULTS: As a result of screening, 21 patients were experiencing psychological difficulties beyond clinical thresholds after COVID-19 infection (screening positive group). The remaining 11 were screening negative groups. The two groups differed significantly in past psychiatric histories (p=0.034), with the former having a higher number of diagnoses. The effect of the intervention was analyzed, and clinical improvement before and after the intervention was observed. Our intervention was found to be effective in reducing the overall emotional difficulties. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the usefulness of new interventions required in the context of healthcare following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare Workforce Response to The Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Daegu, Korea: A Multi-Center, Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Securing an available healthcare workforce is critical to respond to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, research investigating Korea's COVID-19 staffing response is rare. To present the fundamental data of healthcare staff in response to the surge in COVID-19 cases, we investigated the healthcare workforce response in Daegu, South Korea, which experienced the first largest outbreak of COVID-19 outside of China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, this retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed data on the scale and characteristics of healthcare workers (HCWs). Additionally, it analyzed the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of HCWs infected with COVID-19 in six major teaching hospitals (five tertiary and one secondary) in Daegu from January 19 to April 30, 2020. RESULTS: During this study period, only 1.3% (n = 611) of the total hospitalized patients (n = 48,807) were COVID-19 inpatients, but they occupied 6.0% (n = 303) of the total hospital beds (n = 5,056), and 23.7% (n = 3,471) of all HCWs (n = 14,651) worked in response to COVID-19. HCWs participating in COVID-19-related works comprised 50.6% (n = 1,203) of doctors (n = 2,379), 26.3% (n = 1,571) of nurses (n = 5,982), and 11.4% (n = 697) of other HCWs (n = 6,108). Only 0.3% (n = 51) of HCWs (n = 14,651) developed COVID-19 infections from community-acquired (66.7%) or hospital-acquired (29.4%). Nurses were affected predominantly (33.3%), followed by doctors (9.8%), caregivers (7.8%), radiographers (5.9%), and others (45.1%), including nurse aides and administrative, facility maintenance, telephone appointment centers, and convenience store staff. All HCWs infected with COVID-19 recovered completely. The 32.7% (n = 333) of individuals (n = 1,018) exposed to HCWs who had COVID-19 were quarantined, and only one case of secondary transmission among them occurred. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated significant staffing and facility usage, which is disproportionate to the relatively low number of COVID-19 inpatients, imposing a substantial burden on healthcare resources. Therefore, beyond the current reimbursement level of the Korean National Health Insurance, a new type of rewarding system is needed to prepare hospitals for the emerging outbreaks of infectious diseases. Keeping HCWs safe from COVID-19 is crucial for maintaining the healthcare workforce during a sudden massive outbreak. Further studies are needed to determine the standards of required HCWs through detailed research on the working hours and intensity of HCWs responding to COVID-19.

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The efficacies of lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare the virological and clinical responses to lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine at a single center in Korea from February 17 to March 31, 2020. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine concurrently and those treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine for less than 7 days were excluded. Time to negative conversion of viral RNA, time to clinical improvement, and safety outcomes were assessed after 6 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 65 patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 25 men [38.5%]), 31 were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and 34 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The median duration of symptoms before treatment was 7 days and 26 patients (40%) required oxygen support at baseline. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir had a significantly shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA than those treated with hydroxychloroquine (median, 21 days vs. 28 days). Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 4.21) and younger age (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.87) was associated with negative conversion of viral RNA. There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between lopinavir-ritonavir- and hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (median, 18 days vs. 21 days). Lymphopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were more frequent in lopinavir-ritonavir-treated patients compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with more rapid viral clearance than hydroxychloroquine in mild to moderate COVID-19, despite comparable clinical responses. These findings should be confirmed in randomized, controlled trials.

Risk factors for isolation of multi-drug resistant organisms in coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia: A multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Superimposed multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) co-infection can be associated with worse outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), even if these patients were managed with strict airborne and contact precautions. Identifying risk factors for isolation of MDROs is critical to COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: All eligible adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from 10 hospitals in the Republic of Korea between February 2020 and May 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. Using this cohort, epidemiology and risk factors for isolation of MDROs were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 152 patients, 47 with microbial culture results were included. Twenty isolates of MDROs from 13 (28%) patients were cultured. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (5 isolates) was the most common MDRO, followed by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (4 isolates). MDROs were mostly isolated from sputum samples (80%, 16/20). The median time from hospitalization to MDRO isolation was 28 days (interquartile range, 18-38 days). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with MDRO isolation (62% vs 15%; P = .001). Use of systemic corticosteroids after diagnosis of COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 15.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.34-97.01; P = .004) and long-term care facility (LTCF) stay before diagnosis of COVID-19 (aOR: 6.09; 95% CI: 1.02-36.49; P = .048) were associated with MDRO isolation. CONCLUSIONS: MDROs were isolated from 28% of COVID-19 pneumonia patients with culture data and 8.6% of the entire cohort. Previous LTCF stay and adjunctive corticosteroid use were risk factors for the isolation of MDROs. Strict infection prevention strategies may be needed in these COVID-19 patients with risk factors.

Prognostic Implication of Baseline Sarcopenia for Length of Hospital Stay and Survival in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not clearly determined yet. We aimed to investigate the association between baseline sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: All hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had baseline chest computed tomography (CT) scans at a Korean university hospital from February 2020 to May 2020 were included. The main outcome was time from hospital admission to discharge. Death was considered as a competing risk for discharge. Baseline skeletal muscle cross-sectional area at the level of the 12th thoracic vertebra was measured from chest CT scans. The lowest quartile of skeletal muscle index (skeletal muscle cross-sectional area divided by height-squared) was defined as sarcopenia. RESULTS: Of 121 patients (median age, 62 years; 44 men; 29 sarcopenic), 7 patients died and 86 patients were discharged during the 60-day follow-up. Patients with sarcopenia showed a longer time to discharge (median, 55 vs 28 days; p < .001) and a higher incidence of death (17.2% vs 2.2%; p = .004) than those without sarcopenia. Baseline sarcopenia was an independent predictor of delayed hospital discharge (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.23-0.96), but was not independently associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 (aHR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.48-30.26). The association between baseline sarcopenia and delayed hospital discharge was consistent in subgroups stratified by age, sex, comorbidities, and severity of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline sarcopenia was independently associated with a prolonged hospital stay in patients with COVID-19. Sarcopenia could be a prognostic marker in COVID-19.

The Association between Mortality and the Oxygen Saturation and Fraction of Inhaled Oxygen in Patients Requiring Oxygen Therapy due to COVID-19-Associated Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) can manifest in a range of symptoms, including both asymptomatic systems which appear nearly non-existent to the patient, all the way to the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Specifically, COVID-19-associated pneumonia develops into ARDS due to the rapid progression of hypoxia, and although arterial blood gas analysis can assist in halting this deterioration, the current environment provided by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to an overall lack of medical resources or equipment, has made it difficult to administer such tests in a widespread manner. As a result, this study was conducted in order to determine whether the levels of oxygen saturation (SpO2) and the fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO2) (SF ratio) can also serve as predictors of ARDS and the patient's risk of mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from February 2020 to Mary 2020, with the study's subjects consisting of COVID-19 pneumonia patients who had reached a state of deterioration that required the use of oxygen therapy. Of the 100 COVID-19 pneumonia cases, we compared 59 pneumonia patients who required oxygen therapy, divided into ARDS and non-ARDS pneumonia patients who required oxygen, and then investigated the different factors which affected their mortality. RESULTS: At the time of admission, the ratios of SpO2, FiO2, and SF for the ARDS group differed significantly from those of the non-ARDS pneumonia support group who required oxygen (p<0.001). With respect to the predicting of the occurrence of ARDS, the SF ratio on admission and the SF ratio at exacerbation had an area under the curve which measured to be around 85.7% and 88.8% (p<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified that the SF ratio at exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.916; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.846-0.991; p=0.029) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) (HR, 1.277; 95% CI, 1.010-1.615; p=0.041) were significant predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: The SF ratio on admission and the SF ratio at exacerbation were strong predictors of the occurrence of ARDS, and the SF ratio at exacerbation and NEWS held a significant effect on mortality.

Diagnostic performance of immunochromatography assay for rapid detection of IgM and IgG in coronavirus disease 2019.

Serologic assays have been developed to detect infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of an immunochromatography-based assay of human serum for COVID-19. The present study enrolled 149 subjects who had been tested by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 and were classified into two groups: 70 who were positive for COVID-19 and 79 who were negative for COVID-19 based on RT-PCR. An immunochromatography-based COVID-19 immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) rapid test on the sera of the study population was applied to measure the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve compared to RT-PCR, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). IgM or IgG antibodies were detected in 65 subjects (92.9%) classified as positive for COVID-19 and in three subjects (3.8%) classified as negative for COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity percentages for IgM or IgG antibodies were 92.9% (95% CI: 84.1-97.6) and 96.2% (95% CI: 89.3-99.2), respectively, with 95.6% PPV and 93.8% NPV. The PPV rapidly improved with increasing disease prevalence from 19.8% to 96.1% in the presence of either IgM or IgG, while the NPV remained high with a change from 99.9% to 93.1%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.945 (95% CI: 0.903-0.988) for subjects with either IgM or IgG positivity. In conclusion, the immunochromatography-based COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test is a useful and practical diagnostic assay for detection of COVID-19, especially in the presence of IgM or IgG antibodies.

The Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Diabetes in Daegu, South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that had affected more than eight million people worldwide by June 2020. Given the importance of the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) for host immunity, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in patients with diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center observational study of 1,082 adult inpatients (aged ≥18 years) who were admitted to one of five university hospitals in Daegu because of the severity of their COVID-19-related disease. The demographic, laboratory, and radiologic findings, and the mortality, prevalence of severe disease, and duration of quarantine were compared between patients with and without DM. In addition, 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matching was conducted with the DM group. RESULTS: Compared with the non-DM group (n=847), patients with DM (n=235) were older, exhibited higher mortality, and required more intensive care. Even after PS-matching, patients with DM exhibited more severe disease, and DM remained a prognostic factor for higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 4.15). Subgroup analysis revealed that the presence of DM was associated with higher mortality, especially in older people (≥70 years old). Prior use of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor did not affect mortality or the clinical severity of the disease. CONCLUSION: DM is a significant risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality. Our findings imply that COVID-19 patients with DM, especially if elderly, require special attention and prompt intensive care.

A case of coronavirus disease 2019-infected liver transplant donor.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel infectious disease that continues to spread on a global scale. There has been growing concern about donor-derived transmissions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Herein, we present the case of a patient who underwent ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation without knowing that the liver donor was infected with COVID-19 during the donation procedure. In this case, the donor-derived transmission to the recipient was not identified, and the liver donor was found to be recovering from a COVID-19 infection. The donor-derived transmission was not identified.