Effect of Intensity of Home Noninvasive Ventilation in Individuals With Neuromuscular and Chest Wall Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data.

INTRODUCTION: Home noninvasive ventilation (NIV), targeting a reduction of carbon dioxide with a combination of sufficient inspiratory support and backup-rate improves outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The aim of this systematic review with individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of intensity of home NIV on respiratory outcomes in individuals with slowly progressive neuromuscular (NMD) or chest-wall disorders (CWD). METHODS: Controlled, non-controlled and cohort studies indexed between January-2000 and December-2020 were sought from Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register. Outcomes were diurnal PaCO2, PaO2, daily NIV usage, and interface type (PROSPERO-CRD 42021245121). NIV intensity was defined according to the Z-score of the product of pressure support (or tidal volume) and backup-rate. RESULTS: 16 eligible studies were identified; we obtained IPD for 7 studies (176 participants: 113-NMD; 63-CWD). The reduction in PaCO2 was greater with higher baseline PaCO2. NIV intensity per se was not associated with improved PaCO2 except in individuals with CWD and the most severe baseline hypercapnia. Similar results were found for PaO2. Daily NIV usage was associated with improvement in gas exchange but not with NIV intensity. No association between NIV intensity and interface type was found. CONCLUSION: Following home NIV initiation in NMD or CWD patients, no relationship was observed between NIV intensity and PaCO2, except in individuals with the most severe CWD. The amount of daily NIV usage, rather than intensity, is key to improving hypoventilation in this population during the first few months after introduction of therapy.

Perceived Need for Mental Health Services Among Healthcare Workers During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic in Turkey: A Multicenter Cross-sectional Study

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has contributed to work-related psychosocial risks in healthcare workers. Aims: To evaluate the perceived need for mental health services and related factors in Turkish healthcare workers practicing in pandemic hospitals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Data were collected from face-to-face interviews with healthcare workers at 19 pandemic hospitals in 13 provinces between September and November 2021. The study survey included the evaluation of the perceived need for and utilization of mental health services in the previous year, as well as sociodemographic, health-related, and work-related characteristics, the General Health Questionnaire-12, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) questionnaire, and the Fear of coronavirus disease-2019 scale (FCV-19S). Results: Of 1,556 participants, 522 (33.5%) reported a perceived need for mental health services, but only 133 (8.5%) reported receiving these services. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the perceived need for mental health services revealed significant relationships with lower age, female sex, being a current smoker, having a chronic disease, having a mental disorder, coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months in settings other than the home or workplace, a positive coronavirus disease-2019 vaccination history, being a physician, being a non-physician healthcare professional, and coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months at work. After adjustment for these characteristics, higher General Health Questionnaire-12 and FCV-19S scores and lower WHOQoL-BREF domain scores were related to the perceived need for mental health services in logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: The findings indicate a substantial need for mental health services amongst Turkish healthcare workers during the pandemic and outline participants' characteristics regarding high-priority groups for the intervention. Future research may focus on developing actions and evaluating their efficiency.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort.

Background and objectives: Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity. Methods: Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11-July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation. Results: We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5-12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (ß [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31-7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (ß [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56-4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (ß [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02-1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70-5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28-6.75]; p = 0.011). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

COVID-19: vaccination vs. hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination is the most efficient way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccination rates remain below the target level in most countries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the vaccination status of hospitalized patients and compare two different booster vaccine protocols. SETTING: Inoculation in Turkey began in mid-January 2021. Sinovac was the only available vaccine until April 2021, when BioNTech was added. At the beginning of July 2021, the government offered a third booster dose to healthcare workers and people aged > 50 years who had received the two doses of Sinovac. Of the participants who received a booster, most chose BioNTech as the third dose. METHODS: We collected data from 25 hospitals in 16 cities. Patients hospitalized between August 1 and 10, 2021, were included and categorized into eight groups according to their vaccination status. RESULTS: We identified 1401 patients, of which 529 (37.7%) were admitted to intensive care units. Nearly half (47.8%) of the patients were not vaccinated, and those with two doses of Sinovac formed the second largest group (32.9%). Hospitalizations were lower in the group which received 2 doses of Sinovac and a booster dose of BioNTech than in the group which received 3 doses of Sinovac. CONCLUSION: Effective vaccinations decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations. The efficacy after two doses of Sinovac may decrease over time; however, it may be enhanced by adding a booster dose. Moreover, unvaccinated patients may be persuaded to undergo vaccination.

The predictors of COVID-19 mortality in a nationwide cohort of Turkish patients.

The COVID-19-related death rate varies between countries and is affected by various risk factors. This multicenter registry study was designed to evaluate the mortality rate and the related risk factors in Turkey. We retrospectively evaluated 1500 adults with COVID-19 from 26 centers who were hospitalized between March 11 and July 31, 2020. In the study group, 1041 and 459 cases were diagnosed as definite and highly probable cases, respectively. There were 993 PCR-positive cases (66.2%). Among all cases, 1144 (76.3%) were diagnosed with non-severe pneumonia, whereas 212 (14.1%) had severe pneumonia. Death occurred in 67 patients, corresponding to a mortality rate of 4.5% (95% CI:3.5-5.6). The univariate analysis demonstrated that various factors, including male sex, age ≥65 years and the presence of dyspnea or confusion, malignity, chronic obstructive lung disease, interstitial lung disease, immunosuppressive conditions, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, and sepsis, were positively associated with mortality. Favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were not associated with survival. Following multivariate analysis, male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were found to be independent risk factors for mortality. Among the biomarkers, procalcitonin levels on the 3rd-5th days of admission showed the strongest associations with mortality (OR: 6.18; 1.6-23.93). This study demonstrated that the mortality rate in hospitalized patients in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was a serious threat and that those patients with male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were at increased risk of mortality; therefore, such patients should be closely monitored.

Covid-19: The Biggest Threat of the 21st Century: In Respectful Memory of the Warriors All Over the World.

Since the first case was diagnosed in China, the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) has become the number one issue in the world and it seems to remain trend-topic for a long time. Until 17 April, it affected 210 countries, infected over 2 million people and caused approximately 150000 deaths. Although the course of the disease ranges from asymptomatic state to severe ARDS; the majority of patients reveal only mild symptoms. Though adults are the most commonly affected group; it can also be seen in newborns and elderly patients. Unfortunately, elderly patients are the most vulnerable group with higher mortality. Elderly patients, smokers and patients with comorbid conditions are most affected by the disease. In certain diagnostical tool is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR) test. However, it can be resulted in false-negative results and in this case the computed thorax tomography (CT) is one of the most important tools with high sensitivity. Besides the supportive treatment, most commonly used agents are immunomodulatory drugs such as plaquenil and azitromycin, and anti-virals including oseltamivir, ritonavir-lopinavir, favipiravir. Until a vaccine or a specific therapy invented, the most important intervention to control the disease is to fight against transmission. This is a real war and the doctors are the soldiers.

COVID-19 Treatment at a Glance.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the ongoing clinical trials are leading to a big race worldwide to develop a treatment that will help control the pandemic. Unfortunately, COVID-19 does not have any known effective treatment with reliable study results yet. In this pandemic, there is not a lot of time to develop a new specific agent because of the rapid spread of the disease. The process of developing a vaccine is long and requires hard work. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not fully understood, some of the proposed treatment alternatives are based on old evidence and some have been used with the idea that they might work owing to their mechanism of action. The efficacy, reliability, and safety of the currently available treatment alternatives are therefore a matter of debate. Currently, the main therapies used in the treatment of COVID-19 are antiviral drugs and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Other proposed options include tocilizumab, convalescent plasma, and steroids, but the mainstay of the treatment in intensive care units remains supportive therapies.

Unclear Issues Regarding COVID-19.

Scientists from all over the world have been intensively working to discover different aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since the first cluster of cases was reported in China. Herein, we aimed to investigate unclear issues related to transmission and pathogenesis of disease as well as accuracy of diagnostic tests and treatment modalities. A literature search on PubMed, Ovid, and EMBASE databases was conducted, and articles pertinent to identified search terms were extracted. A snow-ball search strategy was followed in order to retrieve additional relevant articles. It was reported that viral spread may occur during the asymptomatic phase of infection, and viral load was suggested to be a useful marker to assess disease severity. In contrast to immune response against viral infections, cytotoxic T lymphocytes decline in SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be partially explained by direct invasion of T lymphocytes or apoptosis activated by SARS-CoV-2. Dysregulation of the urokinase pathway, cleavage of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein by FXa and FIIa, and consumption coagulopathy were the proposed mechanisms of the coagulation dysfunction in COVID-19. False-negative rates of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction varied between 3% and 41% across studies. The probability of the positive test was proposed to decrease with the number of days past from symptom onset. Safety issues related to infection spread limit the use of high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hypoxic patients. Further studies are required to elucidate the challenging issues, thus enhancing the management of COVID-19 patients.

Lessons Learned so Far from the Pandemic: A Review on Pregnants and Neonates with COVID-19.

There are concerns regarding the risk and the course of COVID-19 in pregnancy and in the neonates. In this review, we aimed to present the current understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during pregnancy and neonatal periods considering diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prevention. Few studies on pregnant women with COVID-19 have been conducted between December 2019 and April 2020. The majority of patients applied in the third trimester and presented with fever and cough. Ground-glass opacities and consolidation on computed tomography were reported to be common. COVID-19 was proposed to have a milder course than SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in pregnant women. Hydroxychloroquine and antiproteases (lopinavir/ritonavir) were reported to be safe; however, therapeutic efficacy and safety of remdesivir still lack evidence. As ribavirin and favipiravir have teratogenic effects, there are some debates on the use of ribavirin in severe cases. There is still no clear evidence of vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during delivery. Occupational safety issues of pregnant healthcare workers on the frontline should be considered as their risk to develop severe pneumonia is higher because of altered maternal immune response. Knowledge about neonatal outcomes of COVID-19 was based on studies of the last trimester of pregnancy. There is much to be learnt about COVID-19 in pregnant women and in the neonates, especially concerning prognosis- and treatment-related issues.

What We Learned about COVID-19 So Far? Notes from Underground.

The novel coronavirus pandemic poses a major global threat to public health. Our knowledge concerning every aspect of COVID-19 is evolving rapidly, given the increasing data from all over the world. In this narrative review, the Turkish Thoracic Society Early Career Taskforce members aimed to provide a summary on recent literature regarding epidemiology, clinical findings, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and control of COVID-19. Studies revealed that the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus showed significant identity to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor is an important target of the SARS-CoV-2 while entering an organism. Smokers were more likely to develop the disease and have a higher risk for ICU admission. The mean incubation period was 6.4 days, whereas asymptomatic transmission was reported up to 25 days after infection. Fever and cough were the most common symptoms, and cardiovascular diseases and hypertension were reported to be the most common comorbidities among patients. Clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic and mild disease to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several patients showed typical symptoms and radiological changes with negative RT-PCR but positive IgG and IgM antibodies. Although radiological findings may vary, bilateral, peripherally distributed, ground-glass opacities were typical of COVID-19. Poor prognosis was associated with older age, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and high D-dimer level. Chloroquine was found to be effective in reducing viral replication in vitro. Likewise, protease inhibitors, including lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, and nucleoside analogue remdesivir were proposed to be the potential drug candidates in COVID-19 management. Despite these efforts, we still have much to learn regarding the transmission, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19.

The effects of home noninvasive ventilation on the quality of life and physiological parameters of patients with chronic respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: Home noninvasive mechanical ventilation (HNIV) in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure (CHRF) may improve the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduce hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of HNIV on HRQoL, sleep quality and hospitalization rates in restrictive thoracic diseases (RTD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with CHRF. METHODS: In this prospective, single center study patients divided into two groups; the COPD and the RTD groups. HRQoL assessed by The Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-form Health Survey (SF-36) and Severe Respiratory Insufficiency (SRI); the sleep quality was assessed by Epworth and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaires. The patients were reevaluated first month, third months, sixth months and 1 year following HNIV establishment, during which time, hospitalization rates were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety (COPD n = 50, RTD n = 40) out of 102 eligible patients completed the study. Significant improvements in blood gases and HRQoL were observed in the first month of HNIV establishment and remained stable. Mean ± SD SRI summary scale improved significantly from 30 ± 12 baseline to 65 ± 16 at 1 year in COPD group (P < 0.001) and from 39 ± 13 to 63 ± 18 in RTD group (P < 0.001). HNIV reduced hospitalization rates from a mean of 1.9 ± 1.1 to 0.5 ± 0.9 in COPD group (P < 0.001) and a mean of 1.9 ± 1 to 0.5 ± 0.7 in RTD group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HNIV improves HRQoL, sleep quality and gas exchange and reduces hospitalizations in patients with CHRF regardless of etiology.

Morphological overview of cardiovascular comorbidities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Frank's sign.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular diseases are the most common and important comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Literature indicates that there may be a relationship between diagonal earlobe crease (DELC) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Accordingly, the present study aimed to assess the relationship with DELC and cardiac comorbidities in patients with COPD during routine physical examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated the demographic data, pulmonary function test (PFT) results, lipid profile, oxygen saturation, and the presence of DELC in patients with COPD and control subjects. RESULTS: DELC was diagnosed in 155 (62%) of COPD patients and these patients had a higher prevalence of CAD (p = 0.044). Moreover, DELC was diagnosed in 135 men (68.5%) and 20 (37.7%) women in the COPD group (p<0.001) and in 39 (48.8%) men and 14 (56.0%) women in the control group (p = 0.527). On the other hand, CAD was diagnosed in 18% of patients with early-stage COPD (n = 104) and in 30.8% of patients with late-stage COPD (n = 146) (p = 0.041). The sensitivity and specificity of DELC positivity in predicting CAD were 80.65% and 44.15% in COPD patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The presence of cardiac comorbidities in COPD patients may play a vital role in the severity of the disease, exacerbations, and may also reduce the treatment response. Accordingly, an earlobe examination of patients with COPD may be useful in predicting the presence of cardiac comorbidities with high sensitivity.

The diagnostic role of pentraxin-3 in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions

Background/aim: Discrimination of pleural effusion etiology is not always easy in clinical practice. Pentraxin-3 (PTX-3) is a new acute- phase protein. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of PTX-3 in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions. Materials and methods: This prospective study enrolled all consecutive patients from two tertiary hospitals who underwent diagnostic or therapeutic thoracentesis. In a cohort of 149 subjects with pleural effusion, including transudates and malignant (MPE), tuberculous (TPE), and parapneumonic effusion (PPE), serum and pleural effusion PTX-3 concentration measurements were performed using ELISA. Serum and pleural effusion protein, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein (CRP), and adenosine deaminase levels were also assessed. Results: Of these patients, 34 had transudates, 29 had PPE, 63 had MPE, and 23 had TPE. There was a weak correlation between pleural effusion PTX-3 level and serum CRP (P < 0.01). There was a significant difference in pleural PTX-3 levels between the exudative effusion groups (P < 0.01). The median pleural effusion PTX-3 was significantly higher in patients with PPE (11.2 ng/mL, 2­17.8) than MPE (4.7 ng/mL, 1.8­13.9) and TPE (3.1 ng/mL, 2.0­4.1). At a cut-off point of 5.89 ng/mL, PTX-3 had the best discriminatory power for PPE versus other exudative effusions (sensitivity: 86.2%, specificity: 87.7%). The exudative effusion group had a significantly different pleural effusion/serum PTX-3 ratio (P = 0.03). Conclusion: PTX-3 concentration in pleural effusion was elevated without a significant correlation with serum PTX-3 in PPE. These results may suggest that PTX-3 is a local acute-phase reactant and may allow discrimination of PPE from other exudative effusions.