Ocular surface manifestations and SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA detection in conjunctival swabs of patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 pneumonia: A Belgian cohort

Purpose: Previous studies show a great variability of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA detection rates in tear fluids. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in the tear fluid of hospitalized COVID‐19 patients and to evaluate systemic and ophthalmic clinical features in a Belgian cohort. Methods: Adult patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 pneumonia confirmed by a chest computer tomography (CT) were included. Patients with a recent diagnosis or exacerbation of an ocular pathology were excluded. After completing an ocular symptom questionnaire, patients underwent a macroscopic ocular exam and a conjunctival swab. A reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) was performed on the swabs to identify SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA. Clinicobiological data (C reactive protein, lymphocyte count, CT scan, risk factors and symptoms) and PCR results of both ocular and nasopharyngeal samples were collected. Results: Fifty‐eight patients were included between September 2020 and May 2021. 43 (74.1%) were male, the median age was 56 (min 32 ‐max 93). 54 (93.1%) of the nasopharyngeal swabs were positive. Two (3.45%) had a positive conjunctival PCR: one with <10 E3 copies/ml, the second highly positive with > = 10E3 ‐ < 10 E5 copies/ml. Both were males without any ocular symptoms. 13 patients (22%) presented ocular symptoms such as tearing (69.23%), redness (53.85%), burning 38% or itching 15.38%. All but one reported that the symptoms started at the beginning of their SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (92.31%). Statistical analysis by linear regression found that there was a significant statistical correlation between the presence of ocular symptoms and neurological symptoms (p = 0.021). Conclusions: It is possible to find tear fluids with a high viral load but the probability of this occurrence appears to be rather low. The presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in tears was however not associated with the presence of symptoms in this study. Ocular symptoms may not be related to the presence of the virus itself.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin upon Emergency Department Admission during SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Procalcitonin is a marker for bacterial diseases and has been used to guide antibiotic prescription. Procalcitonin accuracy, measured at admission, in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), is unknown in the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin to assess the need for antibiotic treatment in patients with CAP presenting to the emergency department during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a real-world diagnostic retrospective accuracy study of procalcitonin in patients admitted to the emergency department. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on procalcitonin results compared to the reference standard of combined microbiological and radiological analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under (AUC) the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated in two analyses: first assessing procalcitonin ability to differentiate microbiologically proven bacteria from viral CAP and then clinically diagnosed bacterial CAP from viral CAP. RESULTS: When using a procalcitonin threshold of 0.5 ng/mL to identify bacterial etiology within patients with CAP, we observed sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 64.1%, and 43% and 82.6%, respectively, in the two analyses. The positive and negative predictive values of a procalcitonin threshold of 0.5 ng/mL to identify patients for whom antibiotics should be advised were 46.4% and 79.7%, and 48.9% and 79% in the two analyses, respectively. The AUC for the two analyses was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.68) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin measured upon admission during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should not guide antibiotic treatment in patients with CAP.

Multimodal imaging features of transient perivascular inflammation of the carotid artery (TIPIC) syndrome in a patient with Covid-19.

We report the case of a 38-year-old man with transient perivascular inflammation of the carotid artery syndrome that occurred in the course of covid-19. We describe for the first-time multimodal imaging features of the perivascular changes surrounding the carotid artery, and long-term follow-up by ultrasound. The imaging features observed on ultrasound, angiography-CT, MRI and FDG-Pet scan support the hypothesis of the inflammatory nature of the perivascular tissue thickening. The ultrasound follow-up confirmed the spontaneous resolution of the lesion, leaving on site some residual changes as sequelae. The good knowledge of the imaging features reported herein helps to recognize this entity in patients with covid-19.

Model informed dosing of hydroxycholoroquine in COVID-19 patients: Learnings from the recent experience, remaining uncertainties and gaps.

AIMS: In the absence of a commonly agreed dosing protocol based on pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations, the dose and treatment duration for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease currently vary across national guidelines and clinical study protocols. We have used a model-based approach to explore the relative impact of alternative dosing regimens proposed in different dosing protocols for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. METHODS: We compared different PK exposures using Monte Carlo simulations based on a previously published population pharmacokinetic model in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, externally validated using both independent data in lupus erythematous patients and recent data in French COVID-19 patients. Clinical efficacy and safety information from COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ were used to contextualize and assess the actual clinical value of the model predictions. RESULTS: Literature and observed clinical data confirm the variability in clinical responses in COVID-19 when treated with the same fixed doses. Confounding factors were identified that should be taken into account for dose recommendation. For 80% of patients, doses higher than 800 mg day on day 1 followed by 600 mg daily on following days might not be needed for being cured. Limited adverse drug reactions have been reported so far for this dosing regimen, most often confounded by co-medications, comorbidities or underlying COVID-19 disease effects. CONCLUSION: Our results were clear, indicating the unmet need for characterization of target PK exposures to inform HCQ dosing optimization in COVID-19. Dosing optimization for HCQ in COVID-19 is still an unmet need. Efforts in this sense are a prerequisite for best benefit/risk balance.

Efficacy and safety of oral corticosteroids and olfactory training in the management of COVID-19-related loss of smell.

PURPOSE: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, an increasing number of patients are afflicted by olfactory loss, a now well-recognized symptom of the disease. Though many patients seem to recover their sense of smell after a few weeks, a certain proportion of them seem to develop long-lasting olfactory disorder. Yet, as of October 2020, there is no recommended standardized treatment to reduce the risk of developing long-term olfactory disorder. In this pilot study, we investigated the efficacy and the safety of oral corticosteroids and olfactory training as a treatment for patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction as a result of COVID-19. METHODS: Non-hospitalized patients with a sudden loss of smell and a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were recruited by hospital call from February to April 2020. These participants were submitted to an extensive psychophysical testing in order to identify those with persistent dysosmia. Dysosmic patients were then treated either by a 10-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with olfactory training, or by olfactory training alone. All participants were subject to a second olfactory test after a mean of 10 weeks. RESULTS: 72 subjects with documented COVID-19 infection performed the initial olfactory test, on average 5 weeks after losing their sense of smell. Amongst them, 27 (37.5%) patients showed persistent dysosmia and were all included in this study. Nine participants received oral corticosteroids and performed olfactory training (OCS + OT), while 18 performed olfactory training (OT) only. Only participants in the OCS + OT group had significantly improved their olfactory score and did so above the minimal clinically important difference for subjective improvement of smell (p = 0.007). Three of the participants who received oral corticosteroids reported minimal and transient side effects. CONCLUSION: This pilot study may suggest the combination of a short course of oral corticosteroids and olfactory training is safe and may be beneficial in helping patients with enduring dysosmia recover from olfactory loss due to COVID-19. There is a crucial need for further investigation with larger cohorts to corroborate these findings.