Risk Factors of Readmission in COVID-19 Patients; a Retrospective 6-Month Cohort Study.

Introduction: The available literature regarding the rate of readmission of COVID-19 patients after discharge is rather scarce. Thus, the aim in the current study was to evaluate the readmission rate of COVID-19 patients and the components affecting it, including clinical symptoms and relevant laboratory findings. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, COVID-19 patients who were discharged from Imam Hossein hospital, Tehran, Iran, were followed for six months. Data regarding their readmission status were collected through phone calls with COVID-19 patients or their relatives, as well as hospital registry systems. Eventually, the relationship between demographic and clinical characteristics and readmission rate was assessed. Results: 614 patients were entered to the present study (mean age 58.7±27.2 years; 51.5% male). 53 patients were readmitted (8.6%), of which 47 patients (7.6%) had a readmission during the first 30 days after discharge. The reasons for readmission were relapse of COVID-19 symptoms and its pulmonary complications in 40 patients (6.5%), COVID-19 related cardiovascular complications in eight patients (1.3%), and non-COVID-19 related causes in five patients (0.8%). Older age (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06; p=0.002) and increased mean arterial pressure during the first admission (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.08; p=0.022) were found to be independent prognostic factors for the readmission of COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Readmission is relatively frequent in COVID-19 patients. Lack of adequate hospital space may be the reason behind the early discharge of COVID-19 patients. Hence, to reduce readmission rate, extra care should be directed towards the discharge of older or hypertensive patients.

Corticosteroids on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). METHOD: An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections. CONCLUSION: There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.

Electrocardiographic Findings and In-Hospital Mortality of COVID-19 Patients; a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although current evidence points to the possible prognostic value of electrocardiographic (ECG) findings for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, most of these studies have been performed on a small sample size. In this study, our aim was to investigate the ECG changes as prognostic indicators of in-hospital mortality. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, the findings of the first and the second ECGs of COVID-19 patients were extracted and changes in the ECGs were examined. Any abnormal finding in the second ECG that wasn't present in the initial ECG at the time of admission was defined as an ECG change. ECGs were interpreted by a cardiologist and the prognostic value of abnormal ECG findings for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients was evaluated using multivariate analysis and the report of the relative risk (RR). RESULTS: Data of the ECGs recorded at the time of admission were extracted from the files of 893 patients; likewise, the second ECGs could be extracted from the records of 328 patients who had an initial ECG. The presence of sinus tachycardia (RR = 2.342; p <0.001), supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.688; p = 0.001), ventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.854; p = 0.011), interventricular conduction delays (RR = 1.608; p = 0.009), and abnormal R wave progression (RR = 1.766; p = 0.001) at the time of admission were independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality. In the second ECG, sinus tachycardia (RR = 2.222; p <0.001), supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.632; p <0.001), abnormal R wave progression (RR = 2.151; p = 0.009), and abnormal T wave (RR = 1.590; p = 0.001) were also independent prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality. Moreover, by comparing the first and the second ECGs, it was found that the incidence of supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.973; p = 0.005) and ST segment elevation/depression (RR = 2.296; p <0.001) during hospitalization (ECG novel changes) are two independent prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Due to the fact that using electrocardiographic data is easy and accessible and it is easy to continuously monitor patients with this tool, ECGs can be useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients for mortality.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in management of COVID-19; A systematic review on current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections, we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections so that we can reach a conclusion on which NSAID is best choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and CENTRAL databases until 23 March 2020. Clinical trials on application of NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections were included. RESULTS: Six clinical trials were included. No clinical trial has been performed on COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome infections. Studies show that ibuprofen and naproxen not only have positive effects in controlling cold symptoms, but also do not cause serious side effects in rhinovirus infections. In addition, it was found that clarithromycin, naproxen and oseltamivir combination leads to decrease in mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation in patients with pneumonia caused by influenza. CONCLUSION: Although based on existing evidence, NSAIDs have been effective in treating respiratory infections caused by influenza and rhinovirus, since there is no clinical trial on COVID-19 and case-reports and clinical experiences are indicative of elongation of treatment duration and exacerbation of the clinical course of patients with COVID-19, it is recommended to use substitutes such as acetaminophen for controlling fever and inflammation and be cautious about using NSAIDs in management of COVID-19 patients until there are enough evidence. Naproxen may be a good choice for future clinical trials.

Antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19: a systematic review on current evidence.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral therapies in treatment of COVID-19. In addition, clinical trials on the efficacy of antiviral therapies in the management of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have also been reviewed, in order to identify potential treatment options for COVID-19. METHOD: An extensive search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases until the end of March 15, 2020. Two independent researchers performed the screening, and finally the related studies were included. RESULTS: Only one clinical trial on the efficacy of antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19 was found. The results depicted that adding Lopinavir-Ritonavir to the standard treatment regimen of patients with severe COVID-19 has no benefits. Moreover, 21 case-series and case-report studies reported the prescription of antiviral agents in COVID-19, none of which can be used to determine the efficacy of antiviral therapies in confronting COVID-19. In addition, no clinical trials were found to be performed on the efficacy of antiviral agents in the management of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. CONCLUSION: The current evidence impede researchers from proposing an appropriate antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making the current situation a serious concern for international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO). In the time of the current pandemic and future epidemics, organizations such as WHO should pursue more proactive actions and plan well-designed clinical trials so that their results can be used in managing future epidemics.