The return visit, outcome and predicting factors of return visit among suspected COVID-19 outpatients.

Rate of return visit, predicting factors of return visit and occurrence of adverse events in suspected to be or likely cases of COVID-19 patients who received outpatient treatment. This is a retrospective observational cohort study on patients (> 16 years), suspected to be or likely cases of COVID-19 who were visited in a respiratory emergency department and subsequently discharged home. Patients' baseline characteristics were extracted from medical charts. All patients were followed-up for 7 days after their first visit. Patients' outcomes during the7-day follow-up, as well as the severity of pulmonary involvement based on imaging were recorded. A total number of 601 patients (350 men and 251 women) were recruited. The rate of return visit was 27.74% (144 patients) with 6.74% (34 patients) experiencing a poor outcome. Six factors with a significant odds ratio were predictors of poor outcome in patients who received outpatient treatment, namely, older age [odds ratio = 3.278, 95% confidence interval: 1.115-9.632], days from onset of symptoms [1.068, 1.003-1.137], and history of diabetes [6.373, 2.271-17.883]). Predictors of favorable outcome were female gender [0.376, 0.158-0.894], oxygen saturation > 93% [0.862, 0.733-1.014], smoking habit [0.204, 0.045-0.934]. The findings of this study demonstrate that the rate of return visit with poor outcome in patients who received outpatient treatment was reasonably low. Age, male sex, diabetes mellitus and pulmonary disease are predicting factors of poor outcome in these COVID-19 patients who received outpatient management.

Well-controlled vs poorly-controlled diabetes in patients with COVID-19: Are there any differences in outcomes and imaging findings?

AIMS: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and imaging findings between COVID-19 patients with well-controlled diabetes and those with poorly-controlled diabetes. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, 117 patients with coexistent COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on HbA1c values. Clinical data and laboratory parameters were collected from patients' medical records. Also, the chest computed tomography (CT) score was defined by the summation of individual scores from 5 lung lobes: scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were respectively assigned for each lobe if pulmonary involvement was 0%, less than 5%, 5%-25%, 26%-49%, 50%-75%, or more than 75% of each region. RESULTS: Among all patients with diabetes, 93 (79.5%) patients had poorly-controlled diabetes and 24 (20.5%) had well-controlled diabetes; 66 (56.4%) patients were male and the median age was 66 years (IQR, 55-75 years). The chest CT severity scores were not significantly different between patients with well-controlled diabetes and those with poorly-controlled diabetes (p = 0.33). Also, the mortality and recovery rates were similar between the two groups (p = 0.54 and p = 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on the results, clinical outcomes and chest CT severity scores are similar between patients with well-controlled and poorly-controlled diabetes among the Iranian population with COVID-19.

Correlation Between Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography and RT-PCR Results for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Report of 27,824 Cases in Tehran, Iran.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains the gold standard for confirmation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) despite having many disadvantages. Here, we investigated the diagnostic performance of chest computed tomography (CT) as an alternative to RT-PCR in patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 27,824 patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection who underwent unenhanced low-dose chest CT from 20 February, 2020 to 21 May, 2020 were evaluated. Patients were recruited from seven specifically designated hospitals for patients with COVID-19 infection affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. In each hospital, images were interpreted by two independent radiologists. CT findings were considered as positive/negative for COVID-19 infection based on RSNA diagnostic criteria. Then, the correlation between the number of daily positive chest CT scans and number of daily PCR-confirmed cases and COVID-19-related deaths in Tehran province during this three-month period was assessed. The trends of admission rate and patients with positive CT scans were also evaluated. RESULTS: A strong positive correlation between the numbers of daily positive CT scans and daily PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases (r = 0.913, p < 0.001) was observed. Furthermore, in hospitals located in regions with a lower socioeconomic status, the admission rate and number of positive cases within this three-month period was higher as compared to other hospitals. CONCLUSION: Low-dose chest CT is a safe, rapid and reliable alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in high-prevalence regions. In addition, our study provides further evidence for considering patients' socioeconomic status as an important risk factor for COVID-19.