Coronavirus and Its effect on the respiratory system: Is there any association between pneumonia and immune cells.

BACKGROUND: With a new mutation, coronavirus has now become an important pandemic that gripped the entire world. Coronavirus infection often begins in the nasopharynx and destroys the olfactory epithelium. Despite many studies, little progress has been made in the treatment of coronavirus. This study aimed to further investigate the pathogenicity of coronavirus to reduce its infection by examining the virus function in the body and its stages of infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: With the aim of investigating the coronavirus and its effect on the human respiratory system from 1992 to 2020, this study examined the coronavirus and its different aspects and tried to answer whether there is an association between pneumonia and immune cells. This study was conducted in April 2020 and to obtain the related papers on the characteristics of the virus, Nature, ISC Pubmed, Medline WHO, NCBI, and PsycINFO databases were used. Out of 284 papers, 53 were used in this study. RESULT: Studies have shown that avoiding infected areas and strengthening the immune system inhibit the virus to bind the mucosal layers. Given the important role of acquired immunity and lymphocytes against coronavirus, it is necessary to pay attention to boost the immune system in adults and the elderly. Antioxidants help reduce the oxidative stress and inflammation in the immune system thus help it regenerate better. The results showed that children are susceptible to the virus though have lower mortality and clinical manifestations than adults. CONCLUSION: The vaccine should receive further attention and in the long run, antiviral drugs and broad-spectrum vaccines are produced for infectious diseases.

The effect of apnea management on novel coronavirus infection: A study on patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and the effect of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management on COVID-19 among patients with confirmed OSA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone interview survey. SETTING: Academic sleep labs. PARTICIPANTS: Iranian adults ≥ 18 years old with confirmed OSA. RESULTS: Among 275 participants with OSA, 20% (n = 55) were suspected to have history of COVID-19 but had no positive test, and 18% (n = 51) were in the definite COVID-19 group according to their reported symptoms or confirmed positive test. Having severe OSA (apnea hypopnea index ≥ 30) was associated with an increased risk of definite COVID-19, with an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 2.31 (0.87-5.55) compared to having mild OSA in definite COVID-19 group. Those not undergoing treatment for OSA had an OR (95% CI) of 2.43 (1.26-4.67) for definite COVID-19 compared to those accepting treatment in definite COVID-19 group. Total sleep times (TSTs) were 354, 340, and 320 minutes in healthy, suspected, and COVID-19 groups, respectively; TST was associated with COVID-19 (P-value = .04). Similarly, sleep efficiency (SE) scores were 75.7, 74.2, and 67.9% for the healthy, suspected, and COVID-19 groups, respectively (P-value = .005); Beck Depression scores were 13.8, 13.0, and 17.7, respectively (P-value = .056). CONCLUSIONS: OSA as a proinflammatory condition with multiple comorbidities may be a contributing factor to developing COVID-19. Greater OSA severity, no treatment for OSA, and lower TST and SE were associated with increased COVID-19 prevalence among patients with OSA.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse as a treatment for hospitalised severe COVID-19 patients: results from a randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are no determined treatment agents for severe COVID-19. It is suggested that methylprednisolone, as an immunosuppressive treatment, can reduce the inflammation of the respiratory system in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial involving severe hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 at the early pulmonary phase of the illness in Iran. The patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by the block randomisation method to receive standard care with methylprednisolone pulse (intravenous injection, 250 mg·day-1 for 3 days) or standard care alone. The study end-point was the time of clinical improvement or death, whichever came first. Primary and safety analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: 68 eligible patients underwent randomisation (34 patients in each group) from April 20, 2020 to June 20, 2020. In the standard care group, six patients received corticosteroids by the attending physician before the treatment and were excluded from the overall analysis. The percentage of improved patients was higher in the methylprednisolone group than in the standard care group (94.1% versus 57.1%) and the mortality rate was significantly lower in the methylprednisolone group (5.9% versus 42.9%; p<0.001). We demonstrated that patients in the methylprednisolone group had a significantly increased survival time compared with patients in the standard care group (log-rank test: p<0.001; hazard ratio 0.293, 95% CI 0.154-0.556). Two patients (5.8%) in the methylprednisolone group and two patients (7.1%) in the standard care group showed severe adverse events between initiation of treatment and the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that methylprednisolone pulse could be an efficient therapeutic agent for hospitalised severe COVID-19 patients at the pulmonary phase.