Background: Systemic inflammation elicited by a cytokine storm is considered a hallmark of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to assess the validity and clinical utility of the lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein (CRP) ratio (LCR), typically used for gastric carcinoma prognostication, versus the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for predicting in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of LCR and NLR with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Results: The mean age for NLR patients was 63.6 versus 61.6, and for LCR groups, it was 62.6 versus 63.7 years, respectively. The baseline comorbidities across all groups were comparable except that the higher LCR group had female predominance. The mean NLR was significantly higher for patients who died during hospitalization (19 vs. 7, P ≤ 0.001) and those requiring IMV (12 vs. 7, P = 0.01). Compared to alive patients, a significantly lower mean LCR was observed in patients who did not survive hospitalization (1,011 vs. 632, P = 0.04). For patients with a higher NLR (> 10), the unadjusted odds of mortality (odds ratios (ORs) 11.0, 3.6-33.0, P < 0.0001) and need for IMV (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.7, P = 0.008) were significantly higher compared to patients with lower NLR. By contrast, for patients with lower LCR (< 100), the odds of in-hospital all-cause mortality were significantly higher compared to patients with a higher LCR (OR 0.2, 0.06-0.47, P = 0.001). The aORs controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications mirrored the overall results, indicating a genuinely significant correlation between these biomarkers and outcomes. Conclusions: A high NLR and decreased LCR value predict higher odds of in-hospital mortality. A high LCR at presentation might indicate impending clinical deterioration and the need for IMV.

Background: Systemic inflammation elicited by a cytokine storm is considered a hallmark of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to assess the clinical utility of the C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-Dimer levels for predicting in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of CRP and D-Dimer with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Results: A total of 176 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. On presentation, the unadjusted odds for the need of IMV (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.8, p = 0.012) and upgrade to ICU (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5, p = 0.002) were significantly higher for patients with CRP (>101 mg/dl). Similarly, the unadjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in patients with high CRP (>101 mg/dl) and high D-Dimer (>501 ng/ml), compared to corresponding low CRP (<100 mg/dl) and low D-Dimer (<500 ng/ml) groups on day-7 (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2-10.5, p = 0.03 and OR 10.0, 95% CI 1.2-77.9, p = 0.02), respectively. Both high D-Dimer (>501 ng/ml) and high CRP (>101 mg/dl) were associated with increased need for upgrade to the ICU and higher requirement for IMV on day-7 of hospitalization. A multivariate regression model mirrored the overall unadjusted trends except that adjusted odds for IMV were high in the high CRP group on day 7 (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.05-6.0, p = 0.04). Conclusion: CRP value greater than 100 mg/dL and D-dimer levels higher than 500 ng/ml during hospitalization might predict higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Higher levels at presentation might indicate impending clinical deterioration and the need for IMV.

Introduction: COVID-19 induces a pro-thrombotic state as evidenced by microvascular thrombi in the renal and pulmonary vasculature. Therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 has been debated and data remain anecdotal. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that therapeutic anticoagulation is associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute renal failure necessitating dialysis by decreasing the over-all clot burden. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done to determine the impact of therapeutic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) respectively. Results: A total of 176 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were divided into two groups, therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. The mean age, baseline comorbidities and other medications used during hospitalization were similar in both groups. The aOR for in-hospital mortality (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.15-8.10, p = 0.04), upgrade to intensive care (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.43-6.64, p = 0.006) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.95-9.34, p = 0.00) were significantly lower while there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of developing acute renal failure (OR 1.87 95% CI 0.46-7.63, p = 0.64) between two groups. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19, therapeutic anticoagulation offers a significant reduction in the rate of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, and invasive mechanical ventilation. It should be preferred over prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients unless randomized controlled trials prove otherwise.

Background During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and tocilizumab (TCZ); however, evidence on their efficacy and safety have been controversial. Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall clinical effectiveness of HCQ and TCZ in patients with COVID-19. We hypothesize that HCQ and TCZ use in these patients will be associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the impact of HCQ and TCZ use on hard clinical outcomes during hospitalization. A total of 176 hospitalized patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis was included. Patients were divided into two comparison groups: (1) HCQ (n=144) vs no-HCQ (n=32) and (2) TCZ (n=32) vs no-TCZ (n=144). The mean age, baseline comorbidities, and other medications used during hospitalization were uniformly distributed among all the groups. Independent t tests and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs, respectively. Results The unadjusted odds ratio for patients upgraded to a higher level of care (ie, intensive care unit) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.19-5.69; P=.003) and reductions in C-reactive protein (CRP) level on day 7 of hospitalization (21% vs 56%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.55; P=.002) were significantly higher in the TCZ group compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure necessitating dialysis, or discharge from the hospital after recovery in both the HCQ and TCZ groups compared to their respective control groups. Adjusted odds ratios controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications closely followed the unadjusted estimates. Conclusions In this cohort of patients with COVID-19, neither HCQ nor TCZ offered a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. These results are similar to the recently published preliminary results of the HCQ arm of the Recovery trial, which showed no clinical benefit from the use of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (the TCZ arm is ongoing). Double-blinded randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the impact of these drugs in larger patient samples so that data-driven guidelines can be deduced to combat this global pandemic.

Intractable nausea and vomiting along with hiccups is a commonly encountered problem on any general medicine or gastroenterology service. These symptoms are usually not appreciated as the possible initial manifestation of neuromyelitis optica (NMO). Missing diagnosis at this early stage will lead to a delay in the treatment, and hence, irreversible complications including blindness and paraplegia could occur. We report a case of a 22-year-old young female who presented with intractable hiccups and vomiting. After extensive evaluation, she was found to have NMO which involved the area postrema, the vomiting center of the brain. Early diagnosis from the clinical picture aided by aquaporin-4 serologic testing is extremely important to allow early initiation of immunosuppressive therapy. Immunosuppression gives an opportunity to modify the disease at an earlier stage rather than waiting for evolution of disease to fulfill the diagnostic criteria of NMO.