Association between long COVID, functional activity, and health-related quality of life in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults experience persistent symptoms post-COVID-19, termed as Long COVID, affecting their physical and mental health. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of Long COVID, level of physical activity, and functional decline on older adults' health-related quality of life post-COVID-19. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 121 older adults with 60 to 90 years old post-coronavirus infection. The standardized metrics used in the study were Fatigue Severity Scale, Physical Activity Elderly, SF12, Post-COVID-19 functional status scale, and COVID-19 Yorkshire rehabilitation screening scale. The severity of coronavirus infection was evaluated by changes in chest CT scan images and O2 saturation at hospital admission. Data were analyzed using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The results of regression analysis revealed six factors to be predictors of physical health at 6 months post-COVID-19 (F = 9.046, P < 0.001; explained variance 63%), which the significant factors were fatigue, level of physical activity, worsened pain, difficulties in activities of daily living and cognitive-communication problems. Among these factors, greater fatigue and worsened pain intensity were the strongest predictors. Mental health was associated with days of hospitalization and cognitive-communication problems (F = 2.866, P < 0.001; explained variance 35%). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the negative impact of fatigue, pain, low physical activity, and cognitive-communication problems on health-related quality of life, early and accurate evaluation and management are required for recovered older adults post-COVID-19.

Effectiveness of Plasmapheresis Treatment in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19 Disease.

Background: According to the World Health Organization, COVID-19 management focuses primarily on infection prevention, case management, case monitoring, and supportive care. However, due to the lack of evidence, no specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment is recommended. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of plasmapheresis treatment in COVID-19 patients with symptoms of pulmonary involvement on the computed tomography (CT) of the lung. Methods: In 2021, an experimental study in critically ill patients admitted to the COVID-19 ward in the Hazrat-e Rasool hospital diagnosed with COVID-19 was conducted in the second phase (pilot study). The diagnosis was confirmed according to clinical signs, CT scan of the lung, and the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. All patients received the usual treatments for COVID-19 disease and underwent plasmapheresis at a dose of 40 cc/kg daily up to 4 doses. All patients were observed for 24 hours for complications of plasmapheresis treatment and simultaneously for symptoms of COVID-19, after which only routine care measures were performed. The next day and 2 weeks after resumption of the treatment, patients experienced COVID-19 symptoms, including shortness of breath, cough, and fever. Blood oxygen saturation, and treatment results were evaluated. Qualitative and rank variables were described using absolute and relative frequencies and quantitative parametric variables were used using mean and confidence interval. Frequencies were compared in groups using the chi-square test. All tests were performed in 2 directions and P > 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Of the 120 patients studied, 79 (65.8%) were men and 41 (34.2%) were women. The mean age was 60.30 ± 15.61 years (22-95 years). The mean hospital stay was 12.89 days ± 7.25 days (2-38 days). Increased blood oxygen saturation levels in patients had an increasing trend. Inflammatory indices had a downward trend in patients. The frequency of plasmapheresis had no significant effect on reducing the downward trend of inflammatory markers. The greatest reduction occurred in the first plasmapheresis. Conclusion: Finally, according to the findings, plasmapheresis is one of the appropriate treatments to improve patients' symptoms and reduce cytokine storm. Recovered patients had lower levels of inflammatory markers than those who died.

Spontaneous pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in patients with COVID‐19: A case series from Iran

Here, we report six cases of spontaneous pneumothorax and pneumomediastinitis in patients with COVID‐19 in Iran, which were treated with different drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, sofosbuvir, atazanavir, and remdesivir as antiviral agents. Despite the differences in the type of drugs, pneumothorax occurred in all patients. Chest CT can provide useful information in patients with COVID‐19‐associated pneumonia. Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum may develop in COVID‐19‐associated pneumonia due to alveolar damage. Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum may be the first symptom of COVID‐19 or a late complication. Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum may appear in the patients with different antiviral therapy.

Spontaneous pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in patients with COVID-19: A case series from Iran.

Here, we report six cases of spontaneous pneumothorax and pneumomediastinitis in patients with COVID-19 in Iran, which were treated with different drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, sofosbuvir, atazanavir, and remdesivir as antiviral agents. Despite the differences in the type of drugs, pneumothorax occurred in all patients.

The effect of influenza vaccine on severity of COVID-19 infection: An original study from Iran.

Background: The COVID-19 infection is a novel virus that mainly targets the respiratory system via specific receptors without any coronavirus-targeted therapies. Many efforts have been made to prepare specific vaccines for COVID-19 or use of prefabricated vaccines of other similar viruses, especially severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza (flu). We aimed to evaluate the effects of previous flu vaccine injection on severity of incoming COVID-19 infection. Methods: We conducted a large cross-sectional study of 529 hospitalized Iranian COVID patients to evaluate the severity of disease courses in patients with or without previous flu vaccination history using some main factors like length of hospitalization, need for the intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay in the ICU for comparison between COVID-19 infected patients with or without flu vaccination history. For the quantitative data, we used independent-samples t and Mann-Whitney tests. The qualitative data were calculated using the Fisher exact and chi-square tests in IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (SPSS Inc) and P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no significant differences in the demographic data of patients, disease, and severity-related parameters between the 2 groups. It means that there were not any significant differences between patients with and without history of flu vaccination regarding mean days of hospitalization, percentage of needing to be admitted to the ICU, days being admitted to the ICU (8.44±6.36 vs 7.94±8.57; 17% vs 11.5%; and 1.17±3.09 vs 0.92±3.04, retrospectively) (p=0.883, 0.235, and 0.809, respectively). In the laboratory tests, in comparison between patients with and without history of previous flu vaccination, only lymphocytes count in the vaccine positive group was higher than the vaccine negative group (20.82±11.23 vs 18.04±9.71) (p=0.067) and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) levels were higher in the vaccine negative group (146.57±109.72 vs 214.15±332.06) (p=0.006). Conclusion: We did not find any association between flu vaccination and decrease in disease severity in our patients. It seems that patients with previous history of flu vaccination may experience less laboratory abnormalities in some parameters that could be interpreted in favor of lower overall inflammation; however, this study cannot answer this definitely because of its design. As we collected retrospective data from only alive discharged patients and had no healthy control group, we could not discuss the probable effect of the vaccine on the mortality rate or its probable protective role against the infection. We need more well-designed controlled studies with different populations in different geographic areas to address the controversies.

Comparing the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the safety and efficacy of a treatment protocol containing Favipiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a multicenter randomized open-labeled clinical trial on moderate to severe cases infections of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with typical ground glass appearance on chest computerized tomography scan (CT scan) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of less than 93% were enrolled. They were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (1.6 gr loading, 1.8 gr daily) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (800/200 mg daily) treatment regimens in addition to standard care. In-hospital mortality, ICU admission, intubation, time to clinical recovery, changes in daily SpO2 after 5 min discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and length of hospital stay were quantified and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 380 patients were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (193) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (187) groups in 13 centers. The number of deaths, intubations, and ICU admissions were not significantly different (26, 27, 31 and 21, 17, 25 respectively). Mean hospital stay was also not different (7.9 days [SD = 6] in the Favipiravir and 8.1 [SD = 6.5] days in Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups) (p = 0.61). Time to clinical recovery in the Favipiravir group was similar to Lopinavir/Ritonavir group (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.17) and likewise the changes in the daily SpO2 after discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (p = 0.46) CONCLUSION: Adding Favipiravir to the treatment protocol did not reduce the number of ICU admissions or intubations or In-hospital mortality compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir regimen. It also did not shorten time to clinical recovery and length of hospital stay.

Lung abscess as a complication of COVID-19 infection, a case report.

To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported lung abscess as a complication of COVID-19 infection. It is essential to follow-up with the patients after discharge for such complications, especially if they are symptomatic.

Effect of Arbidol (Umifenovir) on COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with COVID-19 has included supportive care to mainly relief symptoms of the disease. Although World Health Organization (WHO) has not recommended any effective treatments for COVID-19, there are some reports about use of antiviral drugs. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Arbidol (ARB) on COVID-19 disease. METHODS: Using an open-label randomized controlled trial, we examined the efficacy of ARB in patients with COVID-19 in a teaching hospital. One hundred eligible patients with diagnosis of COVID-19 were recruited in the study and assigned randomly to two groups of either hydroxychloroquine followed by KALETRA (Lopinavir/ritonavir) or hydroxychloroquine followed by ARB. The primary outcome was hospitalization duration and clinical improvement 7 days after admission. The criteria of improvement were relief of cough, dyspnea, and fever. Time to relief from fever was also assessed across the two groups. Without any dropouts, 100 patients were entered into the study for the final analysis at significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 56.6 (17.8) years and 56.2 (14.8) years in ARB and KALETRA groups, respectively. Majority of patients were male across two groups (66 and 54%). The duration of hospitalization in ARB group was significantly less than KALETRA arm (7.2 versus 9.6 days; P = 0.02). Time to relief fever was almost similar across two groups (2.7 versus 3.1 days in ARB and KALETRA arms, respectively). Peripheral oxygen saturation rate was significantly different after 7 days of admission across two groups (94% versus 92% in ARB and KALETRA groups respectively) (P = 0.02). Based on multiple linear regression analysis, IHD, Na level, and oxygen saturation at the time of admission and type of therapy were the independent adjusted variables that determined the duration of hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that Arbidol, compared to KALETRA, significantly contributes to clinical and laboratory improvements, including peripheral oxygen saturation, requiring ICU admissions, duration of hospitalization, chest CT involvements, WBC, and ESR. We suggest further studies on ARB against COVID-19 using larger sample size and multicenter design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20180725040596N2 on 18 April 2020.

Evolution and resolution of brain involvement associated with SARS- CoV2 infection: A close Clinical - Paraclinical follow up study of a case.

The new severe acute respiratory syndrome- coronavirus 2 is reported to affect the nervous system. Among the reports of the various neurological manifestations, there are a few documented specific processes to explain the neurological signs. We report a para-infectious encephalitis patient with clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings during evolution and convalescence phase of coronavirus infection. This comprehensive overview can illuminate the natural history of similar cases. As the two previously reported cases of encephalitis associated with this virus were not widely discussed regarding the treatment, we share our successful approach and add some recommendations about this new and scarce entity.