The effect of DNA repair gene variants on COVID-19 disease: susceptibility, severity, and clinical course.

Oxidative stress (OS), which leads to DNA damage, plays a role in the pathogenesis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the role of DNA repair gene variants [X-ray repair cross complementing 4 (XRCC4) rs28360071, rs6869366, and X-ray cross-complementary gene 1 (XRCC1) rs25487] in susceptibility to COVID-19 in a Turkish population. We also evaluated its effect on the clinical course of the disease. A total of 300 subjects, including 200 COVID-19 patients and 100 healthy controls, were included in this study. These variants were genotyped using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) methods. The patients were divided into three groups: those with a mild or severe infection; those who died or lived at the 28-day follow-up; those who required inpatient treatment or intensive care. There were 87 women (43.5%) and 113 men (56.5%) in the patient group. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (26%). In the patient group, XRCC4 rs6869366 G/G genotype and G allele frequency were increased compared to controls, while XRCC4 rs6869366 G/T and T/T genotype frequencies were found to be higher in controls compared to patients. For XRCC1 rs25487, the A/A and A/G genotypes were significantly associated with COVID-19 disease. All of the patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit had the XRCC4 rs6869366 G/G genotype. In this study, we evaluated for the first time the impact of DNA repair gene variants on COVID-19 susceptibility. Results suggested that XRCC4 rs6869366 and XRCC1 rs25487 were associated with COVID-19 suspectibility and clinical course.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcome measures of PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients diagnosed as COVID-19: Analyses focusing on the older adults.

PURPOSE: While the definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on PCR confirmation of the virus, the sensitivity of this technique is limited. The clinicians had to go on with the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 in selected cases. We aimed to compare PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients diagnosed as COVID-19 with a specific focus on older adults. METHODS: We studied 601 hospitalized adults. The demographics, co-morbidities, triage clinical, laboratory characteristics, and outcomes were noted. Differences between the PCR (+) and (-) cases were analyzed. An additional specific analysis focusing on older adults (≥65 years) (n = 184) was performed. RESULTS: The PCR confirmation was present in 359 (59.7 %). There was not any difference in terms of age, sex, travel/contact history, hospitalization duration, ICU need, the time between first symptom/hospitalization to ICU need, ICU days, or survival between PCR-positive and negative cases in the total study group and older adults subgroup. The only symptoms that were different in prevalence between PCR-confirmed and unconfirmed cases were fever (73.3 % vs. 64 %, p = 0.02) and fatigue/myalgia (91.1 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.001). Bilateral diffuse pneumonia was also more prevalent in PCR-confirmed cases (20 % vs. 13.3 %, p = 0.03). In older adults, the PCR (-) cases had more prevalent dyspnea (72.2 % vs. 51.4 %, p = 0.004), less prevalent fatigue/myalgia (70.9 % vs. 88.6 %, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The PCR (+) and (-) cases displayed very similar disease phenotypes, courses, and outcomes with few differences between each other. The presence of some worse laboratory findings may indicate a worse immune protective response in PCR (-) cases.

Symptomatology and imaging findings in early post-Covid period: A comparative study in older vs younger patients.

BACKGROUND: While there are substantial reports on the acute phase of Covid-19, the data on post-Covid phase are limited. AIM: To report the data on older post-Covid patients comparatively with the young adults. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center study in post-Covid outpatient clinic. Clinical characteristics, laboratory examination, chest imagings were examined. RESULTS: 665 patients were included (median age, 46; 53 %, male; 10.5 %, aged ≥65). We assessed patients at 47th day (median) after recovery. 43.6 % were suffering from one or more ongoing symptomatology. The prevalence of symptoms or physical examination findings were not different between older and younger groups. Most prevalent ongoing symptom was dyspnea (14.3 % and 11.8 % older and younger group, respectively). Most common laboratory abnormality was high pro-BNP (12.2 %, in both age groups). Despite there was no differences regarding imaging findings at acute-phase, there were higher rates of control imaging abnormalities in older subgroup (35.7 % vs 19.4 %; p = 0.006). On admission 28.4 % younger patients had normal imaging, of whom 12.4 % developed some form of sequela; however, in older group, 40.0 % had normal imaging, of whom 25.0 % developed sequela. CONCLUSION: Complaints related to Covid-19 persisted in about half of the patients at about 1.5 months after Covid. More than 1/3 older post-Covid patients displayed pulmonary sequela in the post-acute period which was more prevalent than those in younger adults. Hence, compared to the younger counterparts, the clinicians should be alert in follow-up of older adults for subsequent pulmonary sequela, even among those that had normal imaging finding on initial presentation.