Poor Nutritional Status and Dynapenia Are Highly Prevalent in Post-Acute COVID-19.

Poor nutritional status is common (estimated prevalence 5-69%) in acute coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and has been associated with hospitalization, the need for intensive care, and mortality. Body composition (BC) and muscle function have also been related in such patients to poor disease outcomes. As the evidence in the literature is limited, a cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the frequency of malnutrition in a cohort of post-acute COVID-19 patients referred to a rehabilitation center after hospital discharge. BC and muscle strength were assessed and the differences between bedridden and not bedridden patients were specifically evaluated. The study sample was composed of 144 post-acute COVID-19 patients (mean age 64.8 years; males = 95), 37% of whom were bedridden (males = 60%). Nutritional status was evaluated with Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and Controlling Nutritional status (CONUT). Fat-free mass (FFM) and skeletal muscle mass (SM) were estimated using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Raw BIA variables (phase angle = PhA and impedance ratios = IRs) were also determined and handgrip strength (HGS) was measured. Dynapenia was identified according to the 2019 EWGSOP criteria. According to MNA, 18% (n. 26) of patients were malnourished and 62% (n. 89) were at risk of malnutrition. As for CONUT, 21% (n. 31) of cases had moderate-severe malnutrition and 58% (n. 83) had light malnutrition. Abnormalities of raw BIA variables (low PhA and high IRs) and low HGS were more common in bedridden patients, in those who were malnourished, or had low FFM or SM. Dynapenic patients were 65% men and 47% women. In conclusion, malnutrition, BC alterations, and low HGS occur in post-acute COVID-19 patients and are more common in bedridden patients. Further studies are needed to identify reliable algorithms for assessing nutritional status in post-acute COVID-19 patients undergoing rehabilitation.

A Survey Among Italian Physicians During COVID-19 Outbreak. Could Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccine Be Effective Against SARS-CoV2?

Background: Epidemiological studies show that BCG-vaccinated population seems to be more likely protected from COVID-19 infection, but WHO gave a stark warning on use of BCG vaccine without confirmed COVID-19 trials. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether TB vaccination, performed several years earlier, could confer protection against COVID-19. Methods: After the Ethical Committee authorization, professional orders were used to contact physicians with an online survey. Specialty, COVID-19 infection and previous BCG vaccination were recorded. Statistical data analysis was performed. Results: 1906 physicians answered the questionnaire, (M = 1068; F = 838; mean age 50.7 ± 13.3 years; range 24-87), more than half (1062; 55.7%) experienced BCG vaccination. Professional activity was recorded, and only 49 subjects (2.6%) of them were infected by SARS-CoV2. Among the group of infected people, asymptomatic form occurred in 12 subjects (24.5%); a pauci-symptomatic form in 24 subjects (49.0%); and a severe form (pneumonia and/or respiratory distress) in 13 (26.5%). Considering only the clinically relevant form of COVID-19, period prevalence was 2.2% (23/1062) in the vaccinated group and 1.7% (14/844) in the unvaccinated group (OR: 1.31, 95% C.I.: 0.68-2.63, p = 0.427). Conclusion: Our experience does not confirm the possible protective role of BCG vaccination, performed years earlier, against COVID-19. Although recent epidemiological studies point out in BCG-vaccinated population a lower prevalence of SARS-CoV2 infection, in our cohort of physicians no significant difference was found in terms of prevalence of COVID-19 infection. Our data underline the necessity to follow the WHO warning about the indiscriminate use of BCG vaccine, until clear evidence of protection by BCG vaccination against COVID-19 is fully demonstrated.

Bronchodilator reversibility testing in post-COVID-19 patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of bronchodilators in coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) survivors is still uncertain, especially for patients with a concomitant obstructive lung disease. We aimed at verifying the level of bronchodilator reversibility in COVID-19 patients undergoing multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation after the acute phase. METHODS: We enrolled 105 consecutive patients referring to the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit of Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri Spa SB, IRCCS of Telese Terme, Benevento, Italy after being discharged from the COVID-19 acute care ward and after recovering from acute COVID-19 pneumonia. All subjects performed a spirometry before and after inhalation of salbutamol 400 µg to determine the bronchodilation response within 48 h of admission to the unit. RESULTS: All patients had suffered from a moderate to severe COVID-19, classified 3 or 4 according to the WHO classification, Seventeen patients had concomitant obstructive lung disease (14 suffering from COPD and 3 from asthma). FEV1 after salbutamol improved on average by 41.7 mL in the entire examined sample, by 29.4 mL in subjects without concomitant obstructive lung diseases, by 59.3 mL in COPD patients and by 320.0 mL in asthma patients. Mean FVC after salbutamol improved by 65.7 mL in the entire examined sample, by 52.5 mL in subjects without concomitant obstructive lung diseases, by 120.0 mL in COPD patients, and by 200.0 mL in asthma patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a treatment with bronchodilators must always be taken into consideration in post-COVID-19 patients because it can induce a functional improvement that, even if small, can facilitate the breathing of these patients.

Serum KL-6 Could Represent a Reliable Indicator of Unfavourable Outcome in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

KL-6 is a sialoglycoprotein antigen which proved elevated in the serum of patients with different interstitial lung diseases, especially in those with a poorer outcome. Given that interstitial pneumonia is the most common presentation of SARS-CoV2 infection, we evaluated the prognostic role of KL-6 in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were prospectively enrolled. Blood samples were collected at the time of enrolment (TOE) and on day 7 (T1). Serum KL-6 concentrations were measured by chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay using a KL-6 antibody kit (LUMIPULSE G1200, Fujirebio) and the cut-off value was set at >1000 U/mL. Fifteen out of 34 enrolled patients (44.1%) died. Patients with unfavourable outcome showed significantly lower P/F ratio and higher IL-6 values and plasmatic concentrations of KL-6 at TOE compared with those who survived (median KL-6: 1188 U/mL vs. 260 U/mL, p < 0.001). KL-6 > 1000 U/mL resulted independently associated with death (aOR: 11.29, p < 0.05) with a positive predictive value of 83.3%. Our results suggest that KL-6 is a reliable indicator of pulmonary function and unfavourable outcome in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. A KL-6 value > 1000 U/mL resulted independently associated with death and showed good accuracy in predicting a poorer outcome. KL-6 may thus represent a quick, inexpensive, and sensitive parameter to stratify the risk of severe respiratory failure and death.

May Polyphenols Have a Role Against Coronavirus Infection? An Overview of in vitro Evidence.

The coronavirus infection is constantly diffusing worldwide and the incidence of death is dramatically increasing, representing one of the greatest disasters in human history. Nowadays, no effective therapeutic approaches have been licensed, despite the rising interest of the scientific research in this specific field, and the daily growing number of publications, while the need to find novel strategies is urgent. Evidence in the literature reported the antiviral activity of polyphenols, the largest class of bioactive compounds in nature. Interestingly, a limited number of studies investigated the efficacy of polyphenols from different raw materials, directly against coronaviruses. The present manuscript aimed to report this evidence and provide a viewpoint on the possibility to use it as a start point for the development of novel natural approaches against this viral infection, eventually designing further appropriate researches.

Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs, And/Or Serology for SARS COVID-19: What Are We Looking For?

Governments and clinicians that were fully involved in the dramatic SARS-CoV-2 outbreak during the last few weeks in Italy (and more or less all over the world) are fiercely debating the use of methods for screening this viral infection. Thus, all countries are employing a lot of resources in order to test more and more subjects. For this purpose, there are different strategies, based on either direct or indirect tests. Among the first category, the main assays used for SARS-CoV-2 are based on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Such tests can be performed on nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the categories of those with symptoms and those potentially exposed. In order to integrate the molecular assays in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, a wide range of serology immunoassays (IAs) have also been developed. If we want to identify "immune" people in order to let them to come back to work, serology is the best (and probably the only) approach.