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.

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.