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.

Unraveling COVID-19: A Large-Scale Characterization of 4.5 Million COVID-19 Cases Using CHARYBDIS.

Purpose: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD. Patients and Methods: We conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services. Results: We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed. Conclusion: We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.

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.

Impact of Computed Tomography-Quantified Emphysema Score on Clinical Outcome in Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered a risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data on the prognostic impact of radiological emphysema extent on patients with COVID-19 are limited. Thus, this study aimed to examine whether computed tomography (CT)-quantified emphysema score is associated with a worse clinical outcome in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Volumetric quantitative analyses of CT images were performed to obtain emphysema scores in COVID-19 patients admitted to four tertiary referral hospitals in Daegu, South Korea, between February 18 and March 25, 2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to emphysema score (emphysema score ≤1%, 1%< emphysema score ≤5%, and emphysema score >5%). RESULTS: A total of 146 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. The median emphysema score was 1.0% (interquartile range, 0.5-1.8%). Eight patients (6%) had a previous COPD diagnosis. Eighty (55%), 55 (38%), and 11 (8%) patients had emphysema scores ≤1%, between 1% and 5%, and >5%, respectively. The number of patients who received oxygen therapy two weeks after admission was significantly higher in the group with emphysema scores >5% than in other groups (p=0.025). The frequency of deaths was three (27%) in the group with emphysema scores >5% and tended to be higher than that in other groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, COPD, and serum lactate dehydrogenase levels were associated with a greater risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrated that patients with CT-quantified emphysema scores >5% tended to progress to severe disease over time; however, they did not exhibit an increased risk of mortality in our COVID-19 cohort. Further studies with consideration of both emphysema extent and airflow limitation degree are warranted.

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.

Experience of percutaneous tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease that causes respiratory failure. Tracheostomy is an essential procedure in critically ill COVID-19 patients; however, it is an aerosol-generating technique and thus carries the risk of infection transmission. We report our experience with percutaneous tracheostomy and its safety in a real medical setting. METHODS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, 13 critically ill patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between February 24 and April 30, 2020. Seven of these patients underwent percutaneous tracheostomy using Ciaglia Blue Rhino. The medical environment, percutaneous tracheostomy method, and COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results were retrospectively reviewed. After treatment, the COVID-19 infection status of healthcare personnel was investigated by RT-PCR. RESULTS: The ICU contained negative pressure cohort areas and isolation rooms, and healthcare personnel wore a powered air-purifying respirator system. We performed seven cases of percutaneous tracheostomy in the same way as in patients without COVID-19. Five patients (71.4%) tested positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR at the time of tracheostomy. The median cycle threshold value for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase was 30.60 (interquartile range [IQR], 25.50-36.56) in the upper respiratory tract and 35.04 (IQR, 28.40-36.74) in the lower respiratory tract. All healthcare personnel tested negative for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous tracheostomy was performed with conventional methods in the negative pressure cohort area. It was safe to perform percutaneous tracheostomy in an environment of COVID-19 infection.

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.

Deep phenotyping of 34,128 adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an international network study.

Comorbid conditions appear to be common among individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but estimates of prevalence vary and little is known about the prior medication use of patients. Here, we describe the characteristics of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 and compare them with influenza patients. We include 34,128 (US: 8362, South Korea: 7341, Spain: 18,425) COVID-19 patients, summarising between 4811 and 11,643 unique aggregate characteristics. COVID-19 patients have been majority male in the US and Spain, but predominantly female in South Korea. Age profiles vary across data sources. Compared to 84,585 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, COVID-19 patients have more typically been male, younger, and with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. While protecting groups vulnerable to influenza is likely a useful starting point in the response to COVID-19, strategies will likely need to be broadened to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals being hospitalised with COVID-19.

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.