ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, there are no definitive therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Gut microbial dysbiosis has been proved to be associated with COVID-19 severity and probiotics is an adjunctive therapy for COIVD-19. However, the potential benefit of probiotics in COVID-19 has not been studied. We aimed to assess the relationship of probiotics use with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a propensity-score matched retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients received either probiotics plus standard care (probiotics group) or standard care alone (non-probiotics group). The primary outcome was the clinical improvement rate, which was compared among propensity-score matched groups and in the unmatched cohort. Secondary outcomes included the duration of viral shedding, fever, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Among the propensity-score matched groups, probiotics use was related to clinical improvement rates (log-rank p = 0.028). This relationship was driven primarily by a shorter (days) time to clinical improvement [difference, -3 (-4 to -1), p = 0.022], reduction in duration of fever [-1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0), p = 0.025], viral shedding [-3 (-6 to -1), p < 0.001], and hospital stay [-3 (-5 to -1), p = 0.009]. Using the Cox model with time-varying exposure, use of probiotics remained independently related to better clinical improvement rate in the unmatched cohort. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that probiotics use was related to improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Further studies are required to validate the effect of probiotics in combating the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
We previously reported that sputum induction was more sensitive than throat swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in two convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients; however, the value and safety of induced sputum testing require further study. We conducted a prospective multi-center cross-sectional study to compare induced sputum to throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Confirmed COVID-19 patients from six hospitals in six cities across China who received one or more negative RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, and paired specimens (induced sputum and throat swabs; 56 cases) were assayed. In three paired samples, both the induced sputum and throat swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The positive rate for induced sputum was significantly higher than for throat swabs both overall (28.6% vs 5.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). Patients were divided according to time span from onset of illness to sample collection into the more-than-30-day (n = 26) and less-than-30-day (n = 30) groups. The positive rate for induced sputum was also significantly higher than for throat swabs in the less-than-30-day group (53.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). For the more-than-30-day group, all paired samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2. Blood oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and heart rate remained stable during sputum induction and no staff were infected. Because induced sputum is more reliable and has a lower false-negative rate than throat swabs, we believe induced sputum is more useful for the confirmation of COVID-19 and is safer as a criterion for release from quarantine.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Sputum/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/genetics , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/virology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China , Cross-Sectional Studies , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: As a result of the pandemic of COVID-19, the public have been experiencing psychological distress. However, the prevalence of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of psychological distress during COVID-19 outbreak and their risk factors, especially their internal paths and causality. METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of the prevalence of mental disorders was conducted. We used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to estimate the prevalence of anxiety and depression. The internal paths and the causality of the psychological health were analyzed using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. RESULTS: A total of 24,789 respondents completed the survey. We found that the overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, combination of anxiety, and depression were 51.6% (95% CI: 51.0-52.2), 47.5% (95% CI: 46.9-48.1), and 24.5% (95% CI: 24.0-25.0), respectively. The risk of psychological disorders in men was higher than that in women. The status of psychological health was different across different age groups, education levels, occupations, and income levels. The SEM analysis revealed that inadequate material supplies, low income, low education, lack of knowledge or confidence of the epidemic, and lack of exercise are major risk factors for psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this survey poses serious challenges related to the high prevalence of psychological distress, but also offers strategies to deal with the mental health problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.