Background. COVID-19 pandemic has become a global dilemma since December 2019. Are the standard scores, such as acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, accurate for predicting the mortality rate of COVID-19 or the need for new scores? We aimed to evaluate the mortality predictive value of APACHE II and SOFA scores in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods. In a cohort study, we enrolled 204 confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units at the Imam Khomeini hospital complex. APACHE II on the first day and daily SOFA scoring were performed. The primary outcome was the mortality rate in the nonsurvived and survived groups, and the secondary outcome was organ dysfunction. Two groups of survived and nonsurvived patients were compared by the chi-square test for categorical variables and an independent sample t-test for continuous variables. We used logistic regression models to estimate the mortality risk of high APACHE II and SOFA scores. Result. Among 204 severe COVID-19 patients, 114 patients (55.9%) expired and 169 patients (82.8%) had at least one comorbidity that 103 (60.9%) of them did not survive ( ). Invasive mechanical ventilation and its duration were significantly different between survived and nonsurvived groups ( and , respectively). Mean APACHE II and mean SOFA scores were significantly higher in the nonsurvived than in the survived group (14.4 ± 5.7 vs. 9.5 ± 5.1, , 7.3 ± 3.1 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, , respectively). The area under the curve was 89.5% for SOFA and 73% for the APACHE II score. Respiratory diseases and malignancy were risk factors for the mortality rate ( and , respectively) against diabetes and hypertension. Conclusion. The daily SOFA was a better mortality predictor than the APACHE II in critically ill COVID-19 patients. But they could not predict death with high accuracy. We need new scoring with consideration of the prognostic factors and daily evaluation of changes in clinical conditions.

Objectives: This study will evaluate the main hypothesis that supplementation with vitamins A, B, C, D, and E significantly improves the severity and mortality rate in ICU patients with COVID-19. Trial design: This study is a randomized, single-blinded, two-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group clinical trial. Participants: We are conducting this study in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex in Tehran, Iran. The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) aged between 20 and 60 years, (2) both male and female patients with COVID-19, (3) clinical or definitive diagnosis (using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test), (4) patients have not participated in other clinical trials, and (5) no renal or hepatic abnormalities. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patients with specific and rare viral diseases such as HIV and (2) patients who have been undergoing chemotherapy for the past month. Intervention and comparator: Duration of intervention: 7 days from randomization Intervention in the treatment group: Vitamin A 25,000 IU daily Vitamin D 600,000 IU once during study Vitamin E 300 IU twice daily Vitamin C is taken four times per day B vitamins are taken as a daily Soluvit [which included thiamine nitrate 3.1 mg, sodium riboflavin phosphate 4.9 mg (corresponding to vitamin B₂ 3.6 mg), nicotinamide 40 mg, pyridoxine hydrochloride 4.9 mg (corresponding to vitamin B₆ 4.0 mg), sodium pantothenate 16.5 mg (corresponding to pantothenic acid 15 mg), sodium ascorbate 113 mg (corresponding to vitamin C 100 mg), biotin 60 μg, folic acid 400 μg, and cyanocobalamin 5 μg] The control group will not receive any supplements or placebo. All supplements are made in Iran except for Soluvit (from Fresenius Kabi, New Zealand). Main outcomes: Weight, height, and BMI Severity of pulmonary involvement according to CT scan Respiratory support (invasive or non-invasive) Percentage of oxygen saturation (SpO2 level) Serum levels of WBC, CRP, ESR, IL6, IFN-G, and TNF-α The patient’s body temperature The presence or absence of involvement of organs other than the lungs (e.g., heart, liver, kidneys) Duration of hospitalization Mortality rate Randomization: At baseline, eligible patients were randomly assigned to a 1:1 ratio to one of two groups: intervention and control. Block randomization is used based on the gender of patients. Blinding (masking): Patients are unaware of being placed in the intervention or control groups after signing consent. All treatment staff will be aware of which group each of the patients is in due to the specific conditions of the ICU and the absence of placebo for the control group. Numbers to be randomized (sample size): The researchers plan to include 60 patients in total, with 30 patients in each group. Trial status: This is the first version of the protocol which started on April 2, 2020. Recruitment began April 2, 2020, and is expected to be complete by July 4, 2020. Trial registration: The Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20200319046819N1. Registered on April 4, 2020 Full protocol: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Fig. 1, Table 1).

SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) is the most dangerous form of the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. In patients with severe COVID-19, the immune system becomes markedly overactive. There is evidence that supplementation with select micronutrients may play a role in maintaining immune system function in this patient population. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, significant emphasis has been placed on the importance of supplementing critical micronutrients such as Vitamin C and Zinc (Zn) due to their immunomodulatory effects. Viral infections, like COVID-19, increase physiological demand for these micronutrients. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide comprehensive information regarding the potential effectiveness of Vitamin C and Zn supplementation during viral infection and specifically COVID-19. This review demonstrated a relation between Vitamin C and Zn deficiency and a reduction in the innate immune response, which can ultimately make patients with COVID-19 more vulnerable to viral infection. As such, adequate intake of Vitamin C and Zn, as an adjunctive therapeutic approach with any necessary pharmacological treatment(s), may be necessary to mitigate the adverse physiological effects of COVID-19. To truly clarify the role of Vitamin C and Zn supplementation in the management of COVID-19, we must wait for the results of ongoing randomized controlled trials. The toxicity of Vitamin C and Zn should also be considered to prevent over-supplementation. Over-supplementation of Vitamin C can lead to oxalate toxicity, while increased Zn intake can reduce immune system function. In summary, Vitamin C and Zn supplementation may be useful in mitigating COVID-19 symptomology.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread rapidly all over the world in late 2019 and caused critical illness and death in some infected patients. This study aimed at examining several laboratory factors, especially inflammatory and immunological mediators, to identify severity and mortality associated biomarkers. Ninety-three hospitalized patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were classified based on disease severity. The levels of biochemical, hematological, immunological, and inflammatory mediators were assessed, and their association with severity and mortality were evaluated. Hospitalized patients were mostly men (77.4%) with an average (standard deviation) age of 59.14 (14.81) years. The mortality rate was significantly higher in critical patients (85.7%). Increased serum levels of blood sugar, urea, creatinine, uric acid, phosphorus, total bilirubin, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, lactic dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and procalcitonin were significantly prevalent (p=0.002, p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.014, p=0.047, p=0.003, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, P<0.001, and p<0.001, respectively) in COVID-19 patients. Decreased red blood cell, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were significantly prevalent among COVID-19 patients than healthy control subjects (p<0.001 for all). Troponin-I, interleukin-6, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), procalcitonin, and D-dimer showed a significant association with the mortality of patients with specificity and sensitivity more than 60%. Age, sex, underlying diseases, blood oxygen pressure, complete blood count along with C-reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 evaluation help to predict the severity and required management for COVID-19 patients. Further investigations are highly recommended in a larger cohort study for validation of the present findings.

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been considered as a healthcare-associated infection with high mortality. Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the common causes of VAPs around the world. Methodology: This research was a retrospective observational study in the intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary referral collegiate hospital in Tehran between March 2016 and May 2018. Patients who fulfilled VAP due to documented Multidrug Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDR-AB) or Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-KP) criteria were enrolled. General demographic features, duration of hospital stay, antimicrobial treatment regimens, duration of ICU admission, the period of mechanical ventilation (MV) and 30-day mortality were documented and compared. Results: 210 patients were found with clinical, microbiological and radiological evidence of VAP. In total, 76 patients with MDR-AB and 76 patients with ESBL-KP infections were matched in the final analysis. Duration of hospitalization in the patients with MDR-AB was significantly more than that of patients infected with ESBL-KP (p-value: 0.045). Patients diagnosed with MDR-AB VAP had a 65.8% mortality rate compared to 42.1% in the ESBL-KP infection group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Results of the present study demonstrated that VAPs caused by MDR-AB may be more hazardous than ESBL-KP VAPs because they could be accompanied by a longer hospitalization course and even a higher mortality.