[The Importance of Differential Diagnosis During Pandemic: A Case Report with Coexistence of COVID-19, Brucellosis and Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever]. / Pandemi Döneminde Ayirici Taninin Önemi: COVID-19, Bruselloz ve Kirim-Kongo Kanamali Atesi Birlikteligi Olan Bir Olgu Sunumu.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which affects millions of people around the world, has been affecting our country since March 2020. The fact that the symptoms such as fever, myalgia, headache, joint pain which are common in COVID-19 patients are quite similar to the symptoms of diseases such as Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) and Brucellosis. This may cause a diagnostic confusion in regions where these diseases are seen as endemic. In this report, a patient hospitalized with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 and diagnosed with acute Brucellosis, CCHF and COVID-19 during followup was presented. A 31-year-old female patient living in a rural area admitted to the emergency service with complaints of fever, weakness, headache, and body/joint pain. Physical examination revealed a temperature of 38.3°C, a pulse rate of 102/minute, and a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation of 97% in room air. The system examination was normal. In the laboratory findings, an increase in liver enzymes and acute phase reactants was observed and the platelet count was at the lower limit of the normal range. In terms of COVID-19, no involvement compatible with COVID-19 was detected in the thorax computed tomography (CT) of the patient whose nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal mixed swab samples were taken.The patient was transferred to our infectious diseases service with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 and CCHF. Serum samples were sent to the Public Health Agency Microbiology Reference Laboratory Department (PHA-MRLD) for CCHF diagnostic tests and supportive treatment was started. Brucella Rose Bengal and Coombs' immuncapture (1/1280 titer) tests were found as positive in the patient, who was examined for brucellosis because of living in a rural area and having a history of consuming fresh dairy products. In the tests performed at PHA-MRLD, CCHF-specific IgM positivity and the presence of viral RNA were detected. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test was negative. For Brucellosis, doxycycline and rifampicin were added to the treatment of the patient whom was given supportive therapy for CCHF. In the followup, the patient's fever was persisting and loss of taste and smell complaint developed. In this context, COVID-19 test was repeated and resulted as positive. Upon this, hydroxychloroquine sulfate treatment was started due to the recommendation of the current Ministry of Health Scientific Committee Guide. No new infiltration was detected in the chest radiography of the patient. The patient's fever subsided during follow-up and laboratory findings improved. The treatment of brucellosis was completed to eight weeks at the outpatient clinic. No problems were detected in the follow-up. This report was prepared because of a case with simultaneous brucellosis, CCHF and COVID-19 infections which could not be encountered in the literature review. As a result; in regions such as our country where both brucellosis and CCHF are seen as endemic, it is very important to keep these diseases in mind in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.

The value of MRI for detecting subclinical joint inflammation in clinically suspect arthralgia.

In the last decade, much research has focused on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the symptomatic phase preceding the onset of clinical arthritis. Observational studies on imaging have revealed that subclinical joint inflammation in patients with arthralgia at risk for RA precedes and predicts the onset of clinically apparent arthritis. Moreover, the results of two placebo-controlled randomised proof-of-concept trials in patients with arthralgia and MRI-detected subclinical inflammation studies will soon be available. The initial results are encouraging and suggest a beneficial effect of DMARD treatment on subclinical inflammation. Since this may increase the necessity to detect subclinical joint inflammation in persons with arthralgia that are at risk for RA, we will here review what has been learnt about subclinical inflammation in at-risk individuals by means of imaging. We will focus on MRI as this method has the best sensitivity and reproducibility. We evaluate the prognostic value of MRI-detected subclinical inflammation and assess the lessons learnt from MRIs about the tissues that are inflamed early on and are associated with the clinical phenotype in arthralgia at risk for RA, for example, subclinical tenosynovitis underlying pain and impaired hand function. Finally, because long scan times and the need for intravenous-contrast agent contribute to high costs and limited feasibility of current MRI protocols, we discuss progress that is being made in the field of MRI and that can result in a future-proof way of imaging that is useful for assessment of joint inflammation on a large scale, also in a society with social distancing due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The utility of telemedicine in orofacial pain: Guidelines for examination and a retrospective review at a hospital-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has become rapidly implemented into both medical and dental practices. While guidelines for examination through telemedicine have been described in similar fields of oral medicine and neurology, the framework for a comprehensive telemedicine examination for a patient with symptoms of orofacial pain has not yet been described. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to introduce the format of a telemedicine examination for a new patient with orofacial pain as well as describe the success and utility of a telemedicine consultation in a hospital-based orofacial pain practice. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all new telemedicine consults from April 2, 2020, to March 29, 2021. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics as well as details of the initial telemedicine consult and in-office follow up. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy new patients were seen. The most common diagnoses were myofascial pain of the masticatory muscles (37%), an articular disc disorder of the TMJ (21%), and TMJ arthralgia (16%), followed by obstructive sleep apnea (9%) and neuropathic orofacial pain (6%). 146 patients returned to the clinic for an in-office follow up, 78.8% of which had an accurate telemedicine diagnosis. Difficulty discerning between masticatory myofascial pain and TMJ arthralgia was the most common reason for inaccuracy during the telemedicine diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine consultation for patients with orofacial pain can help facilitate an accurate diagnosis and expedite treatment for patients who face challenges presenting for an in-office consultation.

Reactive arthritis after COVID-19.

A previously healthy 53-year-old man was hospitalised for 12 days due to COVID-19 with shortness of breath. A few days after discharge from hospital, the patient developed fever and severe pain in several joints in the lower extremities. The pain was so severe that the patient was unable to stand on his feet. Synovial fluid from the right-side knee contained a high number of polynuclear cells and a few mononuclear cells. Microscopy, culture and PCR tests for bacterial infection were all negative. Furthermore, the patient tested negative for rheumatoid factor, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27. Thus, the condition was compatible with reactive arthritis. The condition improved markedly after a few days' treatment with non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs and prednisolone.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.

Viral arthralgia a new manifestation of COVID-19 infection? A cohort study of COVID-19-associated musculoskeletal symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal symptoms are often unrecognised as a prominent feature of COVID-19 infection. This study hypothesised that viral arthralgia is an uncommon but distinct manifestation of COVID-19 infection. In addition, it aimed to characterise the other musculoskeletal presentations of COVID-19 infection and study their prognostic implications. METHODS: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 infection were divided into two groups: those with and without musculoskeletal symptoms. Those with musculoskeletal symptoms were subdivided according to four patterns of musculoskeletal involvement: myalgia, arthralgia, backache and generalised body ache. Using binary regression logistic analysis, the risk of developing a viral pneumonia in patients with and without musculoskeletal complaints was compared. RESULTS: Of 294 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 88 (30%) reported musculoskeletal complaints. Among these 88 patients, 37.5% had myalgia, 5.7% arthralgia, 6.8% new-onset backache and 50% generalised body ache. The presence of musculoskeletal complaints was not associated with the risk of developing viral pneumonia (6.8% vs. 9.7%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.26-1.76, p = 0.426). COVID-19 arthralgia was often more severe and had variable onset, while generalised body ache and myalgia were milder and coincided with the occurrence of fever or respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSION: Viral arthralgia is a novel clinical manifestation of COVID-19, and untypical of a viral prodrome or a reactive arthropathy. While musculoskeletal symptoms were not associated with developing a pneumonia, to avoid missing a diagnosis of COVID-19, clinicians should be aware of its variable onset, particularly when respiratory symptoms are absent at the time of presentation.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.

The negative impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on pain and physical function in patients with end-stage hip or knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain, functional impairment, mental health, and daily activity in patients with end-stage hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) during the COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: The study included 63 patients, with hip or knee OA, who had been scheduled for arthroplasty that was postponed because of COVID-19. Patients were evaluated by telephone interviews during the first week after lockdown, in the fourth week, and again at the end of the lockdown. Patients rated their pain level on the basis of a visual analog scale (VAS) and completed WOMAC, SF-12 and Tegner activity scale (TAS) questionnaires. RESULTS: VAS and WOMAC scores increased significantly during lockdown, while physical activity significantly decreased. At the final evaluation, VAS and WOMAC showed a significant negative correlation with TAS. The SF-12 subscale scores showed a significant decrease of the physical component during the lockdown, while the mental component remained largely unchanged. Patients with knee OA showed a faster progress of pain compared to those with hip OA. 50 patients (79%) stated they wished to have arthroplasty as soon as possible. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 lockdown had a significant impact on pain, joint function, physical function, and physical activity in patients with end-stage hip and knee OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (Prospective cohort study).