Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the clinical presentations and outcomes of Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) in patients with underlying liver disease. We aimed to summarize the presentations and outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients and compare with historical controls. Methods Patients with known chronic liver disease who presented with superimposed COVID-19 (n = 28) between 22 April 2020 and 22 June 2020 were studied. Seventy-eight cirrhotic patients without COVID-19 were included as historical controls for comparison. Results A total of 28 COVID-19 patients (two without cirrhosis, one with compensated cirrhosis, sixteen with acute decompensation [AD], and nine with acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF]) were included. The etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (n = 9), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 2), viral (n = 5), autoimmune hepatitis (n = 4), and cryptogenic cirrhosis (n = 6). The clinical presentations included complications of cirrhosis in 12 (46.2%), respiratory symptoms in 3 (11.5%), and combined complications of cirrhosis and respiratory symptoms in 11 (42.3%) patients. The median hospital stay was 8 (7-12) days. The mortality rate in COVID-19 patients was 42.3% (11/26), as compared with 23.1% (18/78) in the historical controls (p = 0.077). All COVID-19 patients with ACLF (9/9) died compared with 53.3% (16/30) in ACLF of historical controls (p = 0.015). Mortality rate was higher in COVID-19 patients with compensated cirrhosis and AD as compared with historical controls 2/17 (11.8%) vs. 2/48 (4.2%), though not statistically significant (p = 0.278). Requirement of mechanical ventilation independently predicted mortality (hazard ratio 13.68). Both non-cirrhotic patients presented with respiratory symptoms and recovered uneventfully. Conclusion COVID-19 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis, with worst survival rates in ACLF. Mechanical ventilation is associated with a poor outcome.

No abstract

Background & objectives: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS and OPS) collection is widely accepted as the preferred method for obtaining respiratory samples. However, it has certain disadvantages which may be overcome by gargling. The primary objective of this study was to assess agreement between gargle lavage and swab as an appropriate respiratory sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The secondary objective was to assess the patient acceptability of the two sampling methods. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study done at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, on 50 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Paired swab (NPS and OPS) and gargle samples were taken within 72 h of their diagnosis. Samples were processed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Post-sample collection, a 10-point scale was administered to assess the level of discomfort with either of the collection methods. Results: All gargle samples were positive and comparable to their corresponding swab samples irrespective of the symptoms and duration of illness. The cycle threshold (C t ) values for gargle samples were slightly higher but comparable to those of swabs. Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Majority (72%) of the patients reported moderate-to-severe discomfort with swab collection in comparison to 24 per cent reporting only mild discomfort with gargle collection. Interpretation & conclusions: Our preliminary results show that the gargle lavage may be a viable alternative to swabs for sample collection for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Adoption of gargle lavage for sample collection will have a significant impact as it will enable easy self-collection, relieve healthcare workers and also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing the need for swabs and personal protective equipment.

No abstract