Evaluation of Reliability and Validity of the RALE and BRIXIA Chest-X Ray Scores in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Chest X-rays are commonly used to assess the severity in patients that present in the emergency department with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia, but in clinical practice quantitative scales are rarely employed. AIMS: To evaluate the reliability and validity of two semi-quantitative radiological scales in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia (BRIXIA score and RALE score). METHODS: Patients hospitalized between October 2021 and March 2022 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis were eligible for inclusion. All included patients had a chest X-ray taken in the ED before admission. Three raters that participated in the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic independently assessed chest X-rays. RESULTS: Intraclass coefficients for BRIXΙA and RALES was 0.781 (0.729-0.826) and 0.825 (0.781-0.862) respectively, showing good to excellent reliability overall. Pairwise analysis was performed using quadratic weighted kappa showing significant variability in the inter-rater agreement. The prognostic accuracy of the two scores for in-hospital mortality for all raters was between 0.753 and 0.763 for BRIXIA and 0.737 and 0.790 for RALES, demonstrating good to excellent prognostic value. Both radiological scores were significantly associated with inhospital mortality after adjustment for 4C Mortality score. We found a consistent upwards trend with significant differences between severity groups in both radiological scores. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that BRIXIA and RALES are reliable and can be used to assess the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. However, the inherent subjectivity of radiological scores might make it difficult to set a cut-off value suitable for all assessors.

A Literature Review of Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestations, Medications and Optimal Dosage, Outpatient, and Post-hospitalization Use of Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Patients.

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to a world pandemic, extensive research has been conducted to identify its characteristics and form an appropriate management plan. One recognized complication of COVID-19 is coagulation defects that can lead to thromboembolic events. We have reviewed the literature to summarize and present the latest research about the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, anticoagulation use and appropriate dose in COVID-19 patients, as well as the effect of anticoagulation in outpatient and post-hospital settings. The pathophysiology of coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 is not fully understood yet, but multiple mechanisms appear to be involved, such as a direct viral attack, hyperinflammation, increased immune response, blood stasis, and endothelial injury. Clinical manifestations are mainly venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), arterial thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, central venous sinus thrombosis, and central retinal vein occlusion. Anticoagulation is widely used in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, unless it is contraindicated. Heparinoid is the main anticoagulant used. However, the appropriate dosage is still debated as research is trying to find a balance between benefits and risks. In outpatients, it appears that anticoagulation has no benefit in contrast to post-hospitalization use, where benefit could be observed in severely affected patients. We concluded that thromboprophylaxis should be used in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the dosage is still a matter of debate. More research needs to be done on outpatient and post-hospitalized patients to derive accurate conclusions.

Impact of Bacterial Infections on COVID-19 Patients: Is Timing Important?

BACKGROUND: Along with important factors that worsen the clinical outcome of COVID-19, it has been described that bacterial infections among patients positive for a SARS-CoV-2 infection can play a dramatic role in the disease process. Co-infections or community-acquired infections are recognized within the first 48 h after the admission of patients. Superinfections occur at least 48 h after admission and are considered to contribute to a worse prognosis. Microbiologic parameters differentiate infections that happen after the fifth day of hospitalization from those appearing earlier. Specifically, after the fifth day, the detection of resistant bacteria increases and difficult microorganisms emerge. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of bacterial infections in patients with COVID-19 on the length of the hospital stay and mortality. METHODS: A total of 177 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 pneumonia were consecutively sampled during the third and fourth wave of the pandemic at a University Hospital in Greece. A confirmed bacterial infection was defined as positive blood, urinary, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or any other infected body fluid. Patients with confirmed infections were further divided into subgroups according to the time from admission to the positive culture result. RESULTS: When comparing the groups of patients, those with a confirmed infection had increased odds of death (odds ratio: 3.634; CI 95%: 1.795-7.358; p < 0.001) and a longer length of hospital stay (median 13 vs. 7 days). A late onset of infection was the most common finding in our cohort and was an independent risk factor for in-hospital death. Mortality and the length of hospital stay significantly differed between the subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this case series, microbial infections were an independent risk factor for a worse outcome among patients with COVID-19. Further, a correlation between the onset of infection and a negative outcome in terms of non-infected, community-acquired, early hospital-acquired and late hospital-acquired infections was identified. Late hospital-acquired infections increased the mortality of COVID-19 patients whilst superinfections were responsible for an extended length of hospital stay.

N-acetylcysteine efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a mucolytic agents with anti-inflammatory properties that has been suggested as an adjunctive therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate available evidence on the possible beneficial effects of NAC on SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In September 2022, we conducted a comprehensive search on Pubmed/Medline and Embase on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on NAC in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent authors. RCTs and observational studies were analyzed separately. RESULTS: We included 3 RCTs and 5 non-randomized studies on the efficacy of NAC in patients with COVID-19, enrolling 315 and 20826 patients respectively. Regarding in-hospital mortality, the summary effect of all RCTs was OR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.43 to 1.67, I2=0%) and for non-randomized studies OR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.47 to 2.23, I2=91%). Need for ICU admission was only reported by 1 RCT (OR: 0.86, 95% CI:0.44-1.69, p=0.66), while all included RCTs reported need for invasive ventilation (OR:0.91, 95% CI:0.54 to 1.53, I2=0). Risk of bias was low for all included RCTs, but certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes due to serious imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence in the included studies was very low, thus recommendations for clinical practice cannot be yet made. For all hard clinical outcomes point estimates in RCTs are close to the line of no effect, while observational studies have a high degree of heterogeneity with some of them suggesting favorable results in patients receiving NAC. More research is warranted to insure that NAC is both effective and safe in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

External validation of the 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in Greece.

Background: Prognostic scores can be used to facilitate better management of patients suffering from life-threatening diseases, provided that they have been tested in the population of interest. Aim: To perform external validation of the 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score. Study Design: Prospective observational Study. Methods: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital in Greece were enrolled in the study. The prognostic scores were calculated based on hospital admission data and ROC curve analysis was performed. We assessed a composite outcome of either in-hospital death or need for invasive ventilation. Results: Both 4C and PRIEST scores showed good discriminative ability with an AUC value of 0.826 (CI 95%: 0.765-0.887) and 0.852 (CI 95%: 0.793-0.910) respectively. Based on the Youden Index the optimal cut-off for the 4C score was 11 (Sensitivity 75%, Specificity 75.5%) and 10 for the PRIEST score (Sensitivity 83% and Specificity 69.4%). Calibration was adequate for both scores, except for the low and very high risk groups in the PRIEST score. Conclusion: The 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score can be used for early identification of patients with poor prognosis in a Greek population cohort hospitalized with COVID-19.