Clinical and Laboratory Evaluations of Patients Diagnosed as Having Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children: A Single Center Experience from Konya

Objective Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), characterized by fever, inflammation, and multiorgan dysfunction, was newly defined after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. The clinical spectrum of MIS-C can be classified as mild, moderate, and severe. We aimed to evaluate demographics, clinical presentations, laboratory findings, and treatment modalities of patients with MIS-C according to clinical severity. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed as having MIS-C between September 2020 and October 2021 in the Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Faculty of Medicine, Türkiye. Results A total of 48 patients (24 females and 24 males) with a median age at diagnosis of 10.3 years (range: 42 months-17 years) were enrolled, the most common clinical severity of MIS-C was moderate. The common presentations of patients were fever (97%), nonpurulent conjunctivitis (89.6%), rashes (81.3%), fatigue (81.3%), strawberry tongue (79.2%), and myalgia (68.8%). The most common laboratory findings were lymphopenia (81.2%), thrombocytopenia (54.1%), elevated D-dimer levels (89.5%), C-reactive protein (CRP;100%), procalcitonin (97%), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (87.5%), ferritin (95.8%), interleukin 6 (IL-6) (86.1%), and probrain natriuretic peptide (pro-BNP) (97%). High levels of CRP, procalcitonin, pro-BNP, and urea were associated with the severity of MIS-C (p < 0.05). Fifteen of the patients were found to have pulmonary involvement. Ascites were the most common finding on abdominal ultrasonography (11 patients) and were not seen in a mild form of the disease. During the study period, two patients died. Conclusion It is important to make patient-based decisions and apply a stepwise approach in treating patients with MIS-C due to the increased risk of complications and mortality. © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Clinical and laboratory findings and PCR results in severe and non-severe COVID19 patients based on CURB-65 and WHO severity indices.

BACKGROUND: The importance of clinicolaboratory characteristics of COVID-19 made us report our findings in the Alborz province according to the latest National Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients and inpatients (trial five versions, 25 March 2020) of Iran by emphasizing rRT-PCR results, clinical features, comorbidities, and other laboratory findings in patients according to the severity of the disease. METHODS: In this study, 202 patients were included, primarily of whom 164 had fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This cross-sectional, two-center study that involved 164 symptomatic adults hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 5 and April 5, 2020, was performed to analyze the frequency of rRT-PCR results, distribution of comorbidities, and initial clinicolaboratory data in severe and non-severe cases, comparing the compatibility of two methods for categorizing the severity of the disease. RESULTS: According to our findings, 111 patients were rRT-PCR positive (67.6%), and 53 were rRT-PCR negative (32.4%), indicating no significant difference between severity groups that were not related to the date of symptoms' onset before admission. Based on the National Guideline, among vital signs and symptoms, mean oxygen saturation and frequency of nausea showed a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05); however, no significant difference was observed in comorbidities. In CURB-65 groups, among vital signs and comorbidities, mean oxygen saturation, diabetes, hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia, chronic heart disease (CHD), and asthma showed a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was seen in symptoms. CONCLUSION: In this study, rRT-PCR results of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were not related to severity categories. From initial clinical characteristics, decreased oxygen saturation appears to be a more common abnormality in severe and non-severe categories. National Guideline indices seem to be more comprehensive to categorize patients in severity groups than CURB-65, and there was compatibility just in non-severe groups of National Guideline and CURB-65 categories.

Confirmed or unconfirmed cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Italian patients: a retrospective analysis of clinical features.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a novel etiologic agent of viral pneumonia. We aimed to compare clinical features of 165 Italian patients with laboratory confirmed or unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia. METHODS: On March 31, 2020, hospitalized patients who presented with fever and/or respiratory symptoms, exposures, and presence of lung imaging features consistent with 2019-nCoV pneumonia were included. Before admission to a hospital ward, patients underwent RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in their nasopharyngeal swab samples. RESULTS: Of 165 patients studied, 119 had positive RT-PCR results and 46 were RT-PCR negative for 2 days or longer (i.e., when the last swab sample was obtained). The median age was 70 years (IQR, 58-78), and 123 (74.6%) of 165 patients had at least one comorbidity. The majority of patients (101/165, 61.2%) had a mild pneumonia, and the remaining patients (64/165, 38.8%) a severe/critical pneumonia. We did not find any substantial difference in symptoms, incubation periods, and radiographic/CT abnormalities as well as in many of the biological abnormalities recorded. However, at multivariable analysis, higher concentrations of hemoglobin (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.65; P = 0.003) and lower counts of leukocytes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001) were statistically associated with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. While mortality rates were similar, patients with confirmed diagnosis were more likely to receive antivirals (95% vs 19.6%, P < 0.001) and to develop ARDS (63% vs 37%, P = 0.003) than those with unconfirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia cases may be actually COVID-19 cases and that clinicians should be cautious when managing patients with presentations compatible with COVID-19.

Antibody response and the clinical presentation of patients with COVID-19 in Croatia: the importance of a two-step testing approach.

According to anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroresponse in patients with COVID-19 from Croatia, we emphasised the issue of different serological tests and need for combining diagnostic methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG ELISA and IgM/IgG immunochromatographic assay (ICA) were used for testing 60 sera from 21 patients (6 with severe, 10 moderate, and 5 with mild disease). The main clinical, demographic, and haemato-biochemical data were analysed. The most common symptoms were cough (95.2%), fever (90.5%), and fatigue and shortness of breath (42.9%). Pulmonary opacities showed 76.2% of patients. Within the first 7 days of illness, seropositivity for ELISA IgA and IgG was 42.9% and 7.1%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 25% and 10.7%, respectively. From day 8 after onset, ELISA IgA and IgG seropositivity was 90.6% and 68.8%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 84.4% and 75%, respectively. In general, sensitivity for ELISA IgA and IgG was 68.3% and 40%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 56.7% and 45.0%, respectively. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody distributions by each method were statistically different (ICA IgM vs. IgG, p = 0.016; ELISA IgG vs. IgA, p < 0.001). Antibody response in COVID-19 varies and depends on the time the serum is taken, on the severity of disease, and on the type of test used. IgM and IgA antibodies as early-stage disease markers are comparable, although they cannot replace each other. Simultaneous IgM/IgG/IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing followed by the confirmation of positive findings with another test in a two-tier testing is recommended.