Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single-Center Study from Turkey.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported increasingly in addition to the respiratory system symptoms. The studies show that the prevalence of gastrointestinal system symptoms and how the gastrointestinal system contributes to the severity and prognosis of the disease is still not clear. This study aims to find the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and the correlation between the gastrointestinal symptoms and the clinical results in hospitalized patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzes patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized in the pandemic unit between March 2020 and August 2020 and compares their demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory and radiologic findings, coronavirus disease 2019 treatments received, the clinical course of the disease, and the gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: In our study, we included 322 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized; 39 patients (12.1%) were admitted to the hospital with at least one gastrointestinal symptom (nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and the loss of taste). Nausea and vomiting are the most common gastrointestinal symptoms with a prevalence of 7.1%, followed by diarrhea with 2.8%, the loss of taste with 2.2%, and abdominal pain with 1.5%. The mean age and D-dimer levels of the patients showing gastrointestinal symptoms were lower than those who did not have any gastrointestinal symptoms. We did not find a significant correlation between the presence of the gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of the disease, treatment received, risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock, admission to the intensive care unit, the need for mechanical ventilation, the mortality rate or the length of hospitalization in the medical floor or the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed that 12.1% of coronavirus disease 2019 patients apply to the hospital due to gastrointestinal symptoms. Furthermore, the gastrointestinal symptoms do not seem to affect the severity and the course of the disease, it is important to identify coronavirus disease 2019 patients showing unusual symptoms such as the gastrointestinal symptoms at an early stage to protect healthcare professionals from infection risk.

The Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Combination Therapy on Hospital Mortality in COVID 19 Pneumonia Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Effective therapeutic approaches for SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) alone or in combination with azithromycin has been used in several countries, without any clear evidence. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of hydroxychloroquine as compared to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated all patients admitted to two university hospitals between 18 March and 20 May 2020 with the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Out of 496 patients, 370 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to recovery, presence of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), the requirement for oxygen therapy, and/or mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients received hydroxychloroquine and 148 were treated with HCQ and azithromycin combination. The in-hospital mortality rates were similar in the two groups (10.8% vs. 6.8%, respectively, p=0.186). Additionally, the needs for oxygen therapy, invasive mechanic ventilation (IMV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were not different. The rate of the requirement of non-invasive mechanic ventilation (NIV) was higher in patients receiving HCQ plus azithromycin (10.1% vs. 4.5%, p=0.035). Time to recovery was 3.5 days in HCQ and 5.0 days in HCQ plus azithromycin group (p<0.001). The median length of hospital stay was longer in patients with the combination therapy (7.0 vs. 5.5 days, p<0.001). Amongst all patients, only 3 patients developed electrocardiographic changes needing discontinuation of therapy. LIMITATIONS: Observational design of the study is the main limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that adding azithromycin to HCQ is not associated with any improvement in clinical outcome and mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and supports the current knowledge not to include azithromycin in the initial treatment of COVID-19.

COVID-19 Pandemic Action Plan of a University Hospital.

In December 2019, in Wuhan, China, scientists observed a sudden and sharp increase in the number of cases of pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome of an unknown origin. By the end of January 2020, the outbreak had spread to Asia, Europe, America, and Australia. In this article, we have outlined the pandemic action plan of our university hospital.

Daily inpatient ertapenem therapy can be an alternative to hospitalization for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Physicians hospitalize the patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) when they need intravenous antibiotics and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is unavailable. Daily inpatient antimicrobial therapy is an alternative to hospitalization, which is similar to OPAT; patients go home after they are administered antibiotics in a separate room in the hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: We assessed our previous daily inpatient practice to revitalize the model in the COVID-19 era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and microbiological responses and the cost effectiveness of the patients with cUTIs who received daily inpatient ertapenem therapy. RESULTS: Our study population was 136 patients in 156 episodes. It was a difficult-to-treat group with older age (mean 63.0 ± 14.8 years) and a high burden of underlying conditions (86.5%). The most common causative organisms were Escherichia coli (74.4%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.2%); 89.7% of the isolates were producing extended-spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL). The microbiologic and clinical success rates were 82.1% and 95.5%, respectively. The patients required hospitalization in 16 episodes (10.2%) because of clinical failures (3.8%), superinfections (2%), planned invasive interventions (3.2%), and side effects (1.2%). Our university hospital saved 1608 bed-days and 2596 € (9702 TL) bed costs. CONCLUSIONS: In the COVID-19 pandemic period, this seems to be an effective, safe, and cost-effective way to decrease hospitalizations for cUTIs in settings where OPAT is unavailable.

COVID-19 S: A new proposal for diagnosis and structured reporting of COVID-19 on computed tomography imaging.

PURPOSE: Because of the widespread use of CT in the diagnosis of COVID 19, indeterminate presentations such as single, few or unilateral lesions amount to a considerable number. We aimed to develop a new classification and structured reporting system on CT imaging (COVID-19 S) that would facilitate the diagnosis of COVID-19 in the most accurate way. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort included 803 patients with a chest CT scan upon suspicion of COVID 19. The patients' history, physical examination, CT findings, RT PCR, and other laboratory test results were reviewed, and a final diagnosis was made as COVID 19 or non-COVID 19. Chest CT scans were classified according to the COVID 19 S CT diagnosis criteria. Cohen's kappa analysis was used. RESULTS: Final clinical diagnosis was COVID-19 in 98 patients (12%). According to the COVID-19 S CT diagnosis criteria, the number of patients in the normal, compatible with COVID 19, indeterminate and alternative diagnosis groups were 581 (72.3%), 97 (12.1%), 16 (2.0%) and 109 (13.6%). When the indeterminate group was combined with the group compatible with COVID 19, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 99.0% and 87.1%, with 85.8% positive predictive value (PPV) and 99.1% negative predictive value (NPV). When the indeterminate group was combined with the alternative diagnosis group, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 93.9% and 96.0%, with 94.8% PPV and 95.2% NPV. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 S CT classification system may meet the needs of radiologists in distinguishing COVID-19 from pneumonia of other etiologies and help optimize patient management and disease control in this pandemic by the use of structured reporting.