Comparison of clinical characteristics between fecal/perianal swab nucleic acid-positive and -negative patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 fecal/perianal swab nucleic acid-positive patients in our hospital and evaluated the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the gastrointestinal tract. METHODOLOGY: Ninety-seven patients in the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 17, 2020 to March 2, 2020 with fecal/perianal swab samples were selected as subjects and the results of real-time fluorescence reverse transcriptase-PCR SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection of fecal/perianal swabs were used to divide subjects into positive and negative groups. RESULTS: Fecal/perianal swabs of 53.61% (52/97) patients were positive including 31 males (59.62%) and 21 females (40.38%). The negative group had more females than males (P = 0.001). The distribution of case classification based on the most severe condition observed after admission was different between groups: five (5.15%) critical type patients were all from the positive group (P = 0.029). There was no statistical difference in clinical manifestations between the groups. In the positive group, the mean nucleic acid-negative conversion time was 14.13 ± 8.61 days, which was significantly later than the negative group (6.98 ± 5.16 days; P < 0.001). In the positive group, 92% (48/52) had nucleic acid-negative conversion with a mean nucleic acid-negative conversion time of 22.58 ± 10.30 days. Among them, 41 (78.85%) cases were delayed compared with pharynx/nasal swab nucleic acid-negative conversion time. CONCLUSIONS: The positive rate of fecal/perianal swab nucleic acid in male patients was higher than that in female patients. Fecal/perianal swab nucleic acid positive may be an indicator of critical conditions in those with COVID-19.

Evaluation of the Adjuvant Efficacy of Natural Herbal Medicine on COVID-19: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study.

Since the outbreak of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei province, the epidemic scale has increased rapidly, and no effective antiviral drug therapy has been identified yet. This study aimed to evaluate the adjuvant efficacy of Natural Herbal Medicine (NHM) combined with Western medicine in the treatment of COVID-19. We performed a retrospective, 1:1 matched, case-control study of the first cohort of hospitalized COVID-19-confirmed cases (January 17, 2020 to January 28, 2020). A total of 22 of the 36 confirmed patients were included in this study, split into two groups of 11: the NHM group (NHM combined standard Western medicine treatment) and control group (standard Western medicine treatment alone). All patients received appropriate supportive care and regular clinical and laboratory monitoring. Main evaluation indicators included improvement of clinical symptoms such as fever, cough and diarrhea after hospitalization; pathogen nucleic acid test result of respiratory tract and fecal specimens of the patient after hospitalization, and change of chest CT examination after hospitalization. The duration of fever in the NHM group ([Formula: see text] days) was significantly shorter than that in the control group ([Formula: see text] days) ([Formula: see text]). During the whole hospitalization period, the number of cases with diarrhea in the NHM group (two cases) was less than that in the control group (eight cases) ([Formula: see text]). Compared with the control group ([Formula: see text]), the duration for improvement (DI) of chest CT in the NHM group ([Formula: see text]) was significantly shorter ([Formula: see text]). Our results suggest that NHM could improve the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients and may be effective in treating COVID-19; thus, a larger, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial should be conducted to further evaluate the adjuvant efficacy of NHM in the treatment of COVID-19.

Comparison of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, H7N9 and H1N1.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to better understand the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. This paper was to differentiate COVID-19 from other respiratory infectious diseases such as avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) and influenza A (H1N1) virus infections. METHODS: We included patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2 (n = 83), H7N9 (n = 36), H1N1 (n = 44) viruses. Clinical presentation, chest CT features, and progression of patients were compared. We used the Logistic regression model to explore the possible risk factors. RESULTS: Both COVID-19 and H7N9 patients had a longer duration of hospitalization than H1N1 patients (P < 0.01), a higher complication rate, and more severe cases than H1N1 patients. H7N9 patients had higher hospitalization-fatality ratio than COVID-19 patients (P = 0.01). H7N9 patients had similar patterns of lymphopenia, neutrophilia, elevated alanine aminotransferase, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and those seen in H1N1 patients, which were all significantly different from patients with COVID-19 (P < 0.01). Either H7N9 or H1N1 patients had more obvious symptoms, like fever, fatigue, yellow sputum, and myalgia than COVID-19 patients (P < 0.01). The mean duration of viral shedding was 9.5 days for SARS-CoV-2 vs 9.9 days for H7N9 (P = 0.78). For severe cases, the meantime from illness onset to severity was 8.0 days for COVID-19 vs 5.2 days for H7N9 (P < 0.01), the comorbidity of chronic heart disease was more common in the COVID-19 patients than H7N9 (P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that chronic heart disease was a possible risk factor (OR > 1) for COVID-19, compared with H1N1 and H7N9. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of severe cases were higher for H7N9 and SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with H1N1. The meantime from illness onset to severity was shorter for H7N9. Chronic heart disease was a possible risk factor for COVID-19.The comparison may provide the rationale for strategies of isolation and treatment of infected patients in the future.