Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single-Center Study from Turkey.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported increasingly in addition to the respiratory system symptoms. The studies show that the prevalence of gastrointestinal system symptoms and how the gastrointestinal system contributes to the severity and prognosis of the disease is still not clear. This study aims to find the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and the correlation between the gastrointestinal symptoms and the clinical results in hospitalized patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzes patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized in the pandemic unit between March 2020 and August 2020 and compares their demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory and radiologic findings, coronavirus disease 2019 treatments received, the clinical course of the disease, and the gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: In our study, we included 322 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized; 39 patients (12.1%) were admitted to the hospital with at least one gastrointestinal symptom (nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and the loss of taste). Nausea and vomiting are the most common gastrointestinal symptoms with a prevalence of 7.1%, followed by diarrhea with 2.8%, the loss of taste with 2.2%, and abdominal pain with 1.5%. The mean age and D-dimer levels of the patients showing gastrointestinal symptoms were lower than those who did not have any gastrointestinal symptoms. We did not find a significant correlation between the presence of the gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of the disease, treatment received, risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock, admission to the intensive care unit, the need for mechanical ventilation, the mortality rate or the length of hospitalization in the medical floor or the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed that 12.1% of coronavirus disease 2019 patients apply to the hospital due to gastrointestinal symptoms. Furthermore, the gastrointestinal symptoms do not seem to affect the severity and the course of the disease, it is important to identify coronavirus disease 2019 patients showing unusual symptoms such as the gastrointestinal symptoms at an early stage to protect healthcare professionals from infection risk.

The Predictive Values of Respiratory Rate Oxygenation Index and Chest Computed Tomography Severity Score for High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Failure in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease-2019.

Background: The prediction of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) failure in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) having acute respiratory failure (ARF) may prevent delayed intubation and decrease mortality. Aims: To define the related risk factors to HFNO failure and hospital mortality. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: To this study, 85 critically ill patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 related acute kidney injury who were treated with HFNO were enrolled. Treatment success was defined as the de-escalation of the oxygenation support to the conventional oxygen therapies. HFNO therapy failure was determined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death. The patients were divided into HFNO-failure (HFNO-F) and HFNO-success (HFNO-S) groups. Electronic medical records and laboratory data were screened for all patients. Respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index on the first hour and chest computed tomography (CT) severity score were calculated. Factors related to HFNO therapy failure and mortality were defined. Results: This study assessed 85 patients (median age 67 years, 69.4% male) who were divided into two groups as HFNO success (n = 33) and HFNO failure (n = 52). The respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) was measured at 1 hour and the computed tomography (CT) score indicated HFNO failure and intubation, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.695 for the ROX index and 0.628 for the CT score. A ROX index of <3.81 and a CT score of >15 in the first hour of therapy were the predictors of HFNO failure and intubation. Age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, arterial blood gas findings "(i.e., partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2], PaO2 [fraction of inspired oxygen]/SO2 [oxygen saturation] ratio)", and D-dimer levels were also associated with HFNO failure; however, based on logistic regression analysis, a calculated ROX on the first hour of therapy of <3.81 (odds ratio [OR] = 4.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-13.02, P = 0.001) and a chest CT score of >15 (OR = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.01-7.88, P = <0.001) were the only independent risk factors. In logistic regression analysis, a ROX calculated on the first hour of therapy of <3.81 (OR = 4.78, [95% CI = 1.75-13.02], P = 0.001) and a chest CT score of >15 (OR 2.83, 95% CI = 1.01-7.88, P = <0.001) were the independent risk factors for the HFNO failure. The intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were 80.2% and 82.7%, respectively, in the HFNO failure group. Conclusion: The early prediction of HFNO therapy failure is essential considering the high mortality rate in patients with HFNO therapy failure. Using the ROX index and the chest CT severity score combined with the other clinical parameters may reduce mortality. Additionally, multi-centre observational studies are needed to define the predictive value of ROX and chest CT score not only for COVID-19 but also other causes of ARF.

Evaluation of COVID-19 antibody response with using three different tests.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this study, the performance of three different commercial antibody assays for COVID-19 was examined and parameters affecting the antibody response were investigated. The correlation of patients' chest CT results, procalcitonin, CRP, and D-dimer levels with the antibody response were retrospectively evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COVID-19 antibodies were detected by three commercially available assays in each patient. Two of the assays were rapid immunochromatographic tests and - one was an ELISA-based IgG assay. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was tested by "COVID-19 RT-qPCR Detection Kit" using nasopharyngeal swab samples. The results of antibody tests were compared with each other, RT-qPCR, Biochemical parameters and chest CT findings. RESULTS: RT-qPCR was positive in 46.6% (41/88) of the evaluated patients among which 77.3% (68/88) were healthcare workers. Seventeen (41.4%) of viral RNA positive patients had a positive antibody result with at least two assays. Both of the rapid immunochromatographic tests had identical sensitivity of 36.6% and specificity of 100%, compared to RT-qPCR assay; while the sensitivity of the ELISA based Euroimmune test was 43.9%, and the specificity was 95.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of the immunochromatographic tests were 75% and 100% respectively, compared to ELISA test result. There was a correlation between antibody positivity and old age and male gender. The presence of typical chest CT findings increased the antibody positivity 13.62 times. Antibody positivity was also increased with the decrease in Ct value of the PCR assay. There was no significant relationship between the biochemical parameters (CRP, D-dimer and procalcitonin values) and the antibody or RT-qPCR results. CONCLUSION: There was a correlation between antibody response and male gender, older age, presence of symptoms, typical chest CT findings and low PCR-Ct value.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Background: To date, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused more than 2.6 million deaths all around the world. Risk factors for mortality remain unclear. The primary aim was to determine the independent risk factors for 28-day mortality. Materials and methods: In this retrospective cohort study, critically ill patients (≥ 18 years) who were admitted to the intensive care unit due to COVID-19 were included. Patient characteristics, laboratory data, radiologic findings, treatments, and complications were analyzed in the study. Results: A total of 249 patients (median age 71, 69.1% male) were included in the study. 28-day mortality was 67.9% (n = 169). The median age of deceased patients was 75 (66­81). Of them, 68.6% were male. Cerebrovascular disease, dementia, chronic kidney disease, and malignancy were significantly higher in the deceased group. In the multivariate analysis, sepsis/septic shock (OR, 15.16, 95% CI, 3.96­58.11, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (OR, 4.73, 95% CI, 1.55­14.46, p = 0.006), acute cardiac injury (OR, 9.76, 95% CI, 1.84­51.83, p = 0.007), and chest CT score higher than 15 (OR, 4.49, 95% CI, 1.51-13.38, p = 0.007) were independent risk factors for 28-day mortality. Conclusion: Early detection of the risk factors and the use of chest CT score might improve the outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Evaluation of COVID-19 antibody response with using three different tests

Background and Objectives: In this study, the performance of three different commercial antibody assays for COVID-19 was examined and parameters affecting the antibody response were investigated. The correlation of patients' chest CT results, procalcitonin, CRP, and D-dimer levels with the antibody response were retrospectively evaluated. Materials and Methods: COVID-19 antibodies were detected by three commercially available assays in each patient. Two of the assays were rapid immunochromatographic tests and - one was an ELISA-based IgG assay. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was tested by "COVID-19 RT-qPCR Detection Kit" using nasopharyngeal swab samples. The results of antibody tests were compared with each other, RT-qPCR, Biochemical parameters and chest CT findings. Results: RT-qPCR was positive in 46.6% (41/88) of the evaluated patients among which 77.3% (68/88) were healthcare workers. Seventeen (41.4%) of viral RNA positive patients had a positive antibody result with at least two assays. Both of the rapid immunochromatographic tests had identical sensitivity of 36.6% and specificity of 100%, compared to RT-qPCR assay;while the sensitivity of the ELISA based Euroimmune test was 43.9%, and the specificity was 95.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of the immunochromatographic tests were 75% and 100% respectively, compared to ELISA test result. There was a correlation between antibody positivity and old age and male gender. The presence of typical chest CT findings increased the antibody positivity 13.62 times. Antibody positivity was also increased with the decrease in Ct value of the PCR assay. There was no significant relationship between the biochemical parameters (CRP, D-dimer and procalcitonin values) and the antibody or RT-qPCR results. Conclusion: There was a correlation between antibody response and male gender, older age, presence of symptoms, typical chest CT findings and low PCR-Ct value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Iranian Journal of Microbiology is the property of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

COVID-19 S: A new proposal for diagnosis and structured reporting of COVID-19 on computed tomography imaging.

PURPOSE: Because of the widespread use of CT in the diagnosis of COVID 19, indeterminate presentations such as single, few or unilateral lesions amount to a considerable number. We aimed to develop a new classification and structured reporting system on CT imaging (COVID-19 S) that would facilitate the diagnosis of COVID-19 in the most accurate way. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort included 803 patients with a chest CT scan upon suspicion of COVID 19. The patients' history, physical examination, CT findings, RT PCR, and other laboratory test results were reviewed, and a final diagnosis was made as COVID 19 or non-COVID 19. Chest CT scans were classified according to the COVID 19 S CT diagnosis criteria. Cohen's kappa analysis was used. RESULTS: Final clinical diagnosis was COVID-19 in 98 patients (12%). According to the COVID-19 S CT diagnosis criteria, the number of patients in the normal, compatible with COVID 19, indeterminate and alternative diagnosis groups were 581 (72.3%), 97 (12.1%), 16 (2.0%) and 109 (13.6%). When the indeterminate group was combined with the group compatible with COVID 19, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 99.0% and 87.1%, with 85.8% positive predictive value (PPV) and 99.1% negative predictive value (NPV). When the indeterminate group was combined with the alternative diagnosis group, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 93.9% and 96.0%, with 94.8% PPV and 95.2% NPV. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 S CT classification system may meet the needs of radiologists in distinguishing COVID-19 from pneumonia of other etiologies and help optimize patient management and disease control in this pandemic by the use of structured reporting.