Effect of 2 Different High-Dose Methylprednisolone Treatments on Clinical Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the use of 2 different high-dose methylprednisolone posology in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia regarding mortality and recovery time between themselves and against steroidal/ non-steroidal treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients followed up between March 2020 and January 2021 were included. The steroid-free treatment protocol was applied before August 2020 (non-pulse group) and a treatment algorithm containing normal and high doses of methylprednisolone was applied after August 2020 (pulse group). Patients with clinical deterioration under the normal dose of methylprednisolone were administered 250 mg or 1000 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 days. We compared the pulse and non-pulse groups, in addition to pulse subgroups with each other, for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were included, including 36 patients in the non-pulse group and 102 in the pulse group. In the pulse group, 70 patients received 1000 mg/day and 32 received 250 mg/day of high-dose methylprednisolone therapy. In the comparison of pulse and non-pulse patient groups, mortality rate was lower in the pulse group (P < .001), and the time to discharge without oxygen support was shorter. Although the patients in the 250 mg subgroup were older, there was no difference between the 250 mg and 1000 mg subgroups in terms of end of oxygen requirement, discharge with oxygen support, and mortality. In addition, the required time to reach the oxygen-free period in patients discharged without oxygen support was similar in the 2 subgroups, and the majority of patients in both subgroups reached the oxygen-free period on the 20th day after initiating methylprednisolone. CONCLUSION: Since there was no difference in clinical improvement between the use of 250 mg or 1000 mg methylprednisolone in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 infection, 1000 mg methylprednisolone was not required.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and treatment access of patients with viral hepatitis in Turkey.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate access to diagnosis, treatment and follow-up in patients with viral hepatitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: Patients who started treatment for hepatitis B and hepatitis C were included in the study and analyzed in two periods: before-pandemic and during-pandemic. Indication for treatment and frequency of laboratory follow-up was obtained from hospital records. A telephone survey was administered to evaluate treatment access and compliance. RESULTS: Four centers with 258 patients were included in the study. Of these 161 (62.4%) were male, median age was 50 years. The number of patients, admitted to outpatient clinics was 134647 in the before-pandemic period and 106548 in the during-pandemic period. Number of patients who started treatment for hepatitis B were significantly high during-pandemic period compared with before-pandemic (78 (0.07%); 73 (0.05%) respectively; p = 0.04). The number who received treatment for hepatitis C was similar in both periods: 43 (0.04%); 64 (0.05%), respectively (p = 0.25). Prophylactic treatment for hepatitis B, due to immunosuppressive agents was significantly higher in during-pandemic period (p = 0.001). In the laboratory follow-ups at 4th, 12th and 24th weeks of treatment, worse adherence was detected in during-pandemic (for all p < 0.05). Access to treatment and compliance of all patients was over 90% and did not differ in the two periods. CONCLUSIONS: During-pandemic, hepatitis patients' access to diagnosis, treatment initiation and follow-up had worsened in Turkey. The health policy implemented during the pandemic had a positive impact on patients' access to and compliance to treatment.

Characteristics of candidemia in COVID-19 patients; increased incidence, earlier occurrence and higher mortality rates compared to non-COVID-19 patients.

Severe COVID-19 patients in ICU are at high risk for candidemia due to exposure to multiple risk factors for candidemia. We aimed to compare the incidence of candidemia in ICU patients with and without COVID-19, and to investigate epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of candidemia patients and risk factors for mortality in candidemia patients. This retrospective study was conducted in patients followed in the ICUs of Ankara City Hospital for 2 years, divided into pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The incidence (event per 1000 patient-days) and epidemiology of candidemia, clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients were compared in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Candidemia incidence was higher in the COVID-19 group (2.16, 95% CI 1.77-2.60) than the non-COVID-19 group (1.06, 95% CI 0.89-0.125) (p < .001). A total of 236 candidemia episodes (105 in COVID-19 patients and 131 in non-COVID-19 patients) were detected during the study periods. COVID-19 cases had a higher rate of corticosteroid use (63.8% vs. 9.9%, p < .001). Epidemiology of candidemia and antifungal susceptibility were similar. Candidemia developed 2 weeks earlier in COVID-19 groups and resulted in higher mortality (92.5% vs. 79.4%, p .005). One-third of candidemia patients died before receiving any antifungal treatment, and this rate was higher in the COVID-19 group. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, corticosteroid use, presence of sepsis and age older than 65 years were independent risk factors for mortality in candidemia patients. Candidemia with high mortality is a more serious problem for COVID-19 patients due to its increased incidence, earlier occurrence and a higher rate of mortality.

Comparing ICU admission rates of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, favipiravir, and hydroxychloroquine plus favipiravir.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare the intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate of hospitalized mild/moderate COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), favipiravir, and HCQ plus favipiravir. METHODS: Single center retrospective designed observational study conducted in Ankara City Hospital. Patients who were hospitalized between March 15, 2020 and June 1, 2020 in COVID-19 inpatient clinics with laboratory confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the study. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for multiple treatment groups approach was used to balance the differences in several variables on admission. RESULTS: Among 2441 patients hospitalized with diagnosis of COVID-19 during the study period, 824 were eligible for the analysis. Median age of patients was 42 (18-93 years). Among all, 347 (43.2%) of the patients had mild disease, 470 (56.8%) had pneumonia. Propensity scores ranged from 0.1841 to 0.9381 in the HCQ group, from 0.03643 to 0.29885 in the favipiravir group, and from 0.03542 to 0.56184 in the HCQ plus favipiravir group. After IPTW for multiple treatment groups was applied, all the covariates in the planned propensity score had weighted standardized effect sizes below 10% which were ranged from 0.005 to 0.092. Multivariate analysis of treatment effect (adjusted effect of treatment) was indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between HCQ, favipiravir, and HCQ plus favipiravir treatment. After using combination of SMOTE and Bootstrap resampling approach, we found no statistically significant difference between HCQ and HCQ plus favipiravir groups in terms of ICU admission. However, compared with the HCQ group, ICU admission rate was statistically significantly higher in the favipiravir group. We obtained the similar results after the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: HCQ with or without favipiravir treatment is associated with reduced risk of ICU admission compared to favipiravir alone in mild to moderate COVID-19 adult patients.

Do Lifestyle Changes of Renal Transplant Recipients During the Pandemic Reduce the Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019?

INTRODUCTION: There is no published study regarding the effects of preventive measures on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) frequency in renal transplantation recipients. The aim of this study is to reveal the preventive measures taken by renal transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether these measures influence the prevalence of the disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After detecting the first COVID-19 case in Turkey, we briefed all of our renal transplant recipients on preventive measures regarding COVID-19. Two months afterward, a questionnaire was prepared regarding the preventive measures practiced by renal transplant recipients, and patients were asked whether they had any COVID-19 symptoms or had received a COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 132 patients, 68 were surveyed through telephone calls. During this time, 95.5% of patients were in isolation at home except for when seeing to their essential needs. Two (2.9%) patients were hospitalized due to increases in creatinine level and urinary tract infection. All patients have worn masks when going out and stated that they washed their hands more frequently. There was a decrease in the frequency of hospital controls in 79.4% of patients. Although 2 (2.9%) patients had complaints of dysuria and fever, they did not apply to the hospital because they thought hospitals carried risk during the pandemic. One patient had a cough with fever and was admitted to the hospital with suspicion of COVID-19 but tested negative. DISCUSSION: It was determined that renal transplant recipients in our study population meticulously complied with preventive measures and increased the use of masks and hand hygiene practices. As a result, none were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.