BackgroundThere are no determined treatment agents for the severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, it is suggested that methylprednisolone, as an immunosuppressive treatment, can reduce the inflammation of the respiratory system.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trial involving severe hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 at the early pulmonary phase of the illness in Iran. The patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by block randomisation method to receive standard care with methylprednisolone pulse (intravenous injection, 250 mg·day−1 for 3 days) or standard care alone. The study endpoint was the time of clinical improvement or death, whichever came first. Primary and safety analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.ResultsSixty-eight eligible patients underwent randomisation (34 patients in each group) from April 20, till Jun 20, 2020. In the standard care group, six patients received corticosteroids by the attending physician during treatment and excluded from the ITT population. Patients with clinical improvement were higher in the methylprednisolone group than in the standard care group (94·1% versus 57·1%), and the mortality rate was numerically lower in the methylprednisolone group (5·9% versus 42.9%; p <0·001). We demonstrated that patients in the methylprednisolone intervention group had a significantly increased survival time compared with the patients in the standard care group [Log rank test: p<0.001; Hazard ratio: 0.293; 95% C‎‎I: 0.‎154–0.556]. A total of two patients in each group (5·8% and 7·1% respectively) showed severe adverse events between initiation of treatment and the end of the study.ConclusionsOur results suggested that methylprednisolone pulse could be an efficient therapeutic agent for hospitalised severe COVID-19 patients at the pulmonary phase.

Background Emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a major healthcare threat. Apparently, the novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) is armed by special abilities to spread and dysregulate the immune mechanisms. The likelihood of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) development in COVID‐19 patients with a list of attributable risk factors for oral infections has not yet been investigated. Objectives We here aim to investigate the prevalence, causative agents, and antifungal susceptibility pattern of OPC in Iranian COVID‐19 patients. Patients and Methods A total of 53 hospitalized COVID‐19 patients with OPC were studied. Relevant clinical data were mined. Strain identification was performed by 21‐plex PCR and sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS1‐5.8S‐ITS2). Antifungal susceptibility testing to fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafungin was performed according to the CLSI broth dilution method. Results In 53 COVID‐19 patients with OPC, cardiovascular diseases (52.83 %), and diabetes (37.7 %) were the principal underlying conditions. The most common risk factor was lymphopenia (71%). In total, 65 Candida isolates causing OPC were recovered. C. albicans (70.7%) was the most common, followed by C. glabrata (10.7%), C. dubliniensis (9.2%), C. parapsilosis sensu stricto (4.6%), C. tropicalis (3%), and Pichia kudriavzevii (= C. krusei , 1.5%). Majority of the Candida isolates were susceptible to all three classes of antifungal drugs. Conclusion Our data clarified some concerns regarding the occurrence of OPC in Iranian COVID‐19 patients. Further studies should be conducted to design an appropriate prophylaxis program and improve management of OPC in critically ill COVID‐19 patients.

Background: We studied the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 905 hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex (IKHC), Tehran, Iran. Methods: COVID-19 patients were recruited based on clinical symptoms and patterns of computed tomography (CT) imaging between February 20 and March 19. All patients were tested for the presence of COVID-19 RNA. The Poisson regression model estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for different parameters. Results: The average age (± standard deviation) was 56.9 (±15.7) years and 61.77% were male. The most common symptoms were fever (93.59%), dry cough (79.78%), and dyspnea (75.69%). Only 43.76% of patients were positive for the RT-PCR COVID-19 test. Prevalence of lymphopenia was 42.9% and more than 90% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) or C-reactive protein (CRP). About 11% were severe cases, and 13.7% died in the hospital. The median length of stay (LOS) was 3 days. We found higher risks of mortality in patients who were older than 70 years (IRR = 11.77, 95% CI 3.63–38.18), underwent mechanical ventilation (IRR = 7.36, 95% CI 5.06–10.7), were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (IRR = 5.47, 95% CI 4.00–8.38), tested positive on the COVID-19 test (IRR = 2.80, 95% CI 1.64–3.55), and reported a history of comorbidity (IRR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.07–2.89) compared to their corresponding reference groups. Hydroxychloroquine therapy was not associated with mortality in our study. Conclusion: Older age, experiencing a severe form of the disease, and having a comorbidity were the most important prognostic factors for COVID-19 infection. Larger studies are needed to perform further subgroup analyses and verify high-risk groups.

Microscopic duodenitis in H. pylori-infected patients may play a major role in producing and aggravating symptoms in FD patients and may be a determinant factor to consider in whether to treat H. pylori infection in functional dyspepsia.