Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, empiric antibiotics (ATBs) have been prescribed on a large scale in both in- and outpatients. We aimed to assess the impact of antibiotic treatment on the outcomes of hospitalised patients with moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study in six clinical hospitals, between January 2021 and May 2021. Results: We included 553 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, of whom 58% (311/553) were prescribed antibiotics, while bacteriological tests were performed in 57% (178/311) of them. Death was the outcome in 48 patients—39 from the ATBs group and 9 from the non-ATBs group. The patients who received antibiotics during hospitalisation had a higher mortality (RR = 3.37, CI 95%: 1.7–6.8), and this association was stronger in the subgroup of patients without reasons for antimicrobial treatment (RR = 6.1, CI 95%: 1.9–19.1), while in the subgroup with reasons for antimicrobial therapy the association was not statistically significant (OR = 2.33, CI 95%: 0.76–7.17). After adjusting for the confounders, receiving antibiotics remained associated with a higher mortality only in the subgroup of patients without criteria for antibiotic prescription (OR = 10.3, CI 95%: 2–52). Conclusions: In our study, antibiotic treatment did not decrease the risk of death in the patients with mild and severe COVID-19, but was associated with a higher risk of death in the subgroup of patients without reasons for it.

It is well known that during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, antibiotics were overprescribed. However, less is known regarding the arguments that have led to this overuse. Our aim was to understand the factors associated with in-hospital antibiotic prescription for COVID-19, and the rationale behind it. We chose a convergent design for this mixed-methods study. Quantitative data was prospectively obtained from 533 adult patients admitted in six hospitals (services of internal medicine, infectious diseases and pneumology). Fifty-six percent of the patients received antibiotics. The qualitative data was obtained from interviewing 14 physicians active in the same departments in which the enrolled patients were hospitalized. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative approach. Our study revealed that doctors based their decisions to prescribe antibiotics on a complex interplay of factors regarding the simultaneous appearance of consolidation on the chest computer tomography together with a worsening of clinical conditions suggestive of bacterial infection and/or an increase in inflammatory markers. Besides these features which might suggest bacterial co-/suprainfection, doctors also prescribed antibiotics in situations of uncertainty, in patients with severe disease, or with multiple associated comorbidities.

Introduction: Healthcare providers represent a limited resource, and their mental health is crucial for patient care and for ensuring containment of the pandemics. We aimed to explore how healthcare workers experienced the preparedness period of COVID-19 pandemic, in order to ascertain the perceived weaknesses and strengths. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 17 participants encompassing senior physicians, residents, and nurses. They were audio-recorded, and the transcription was verbatim. We used thematic analysis. Results: We identified four themes, with subsequent subthemes: dealing with the unknown, human versus doctors, sense of helplessness, and a bridge to heaven, which explore how healthcare workers experienced the lack of knowledge, their feeling of losing control, and how they managed their internal fights. The disappointment provoked by the authorities and their colleagues was further evaluated. We identified factors involved in their well-being. Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic represented and will still pose a challenge for healthcare workers (HCWs) from all over the world. They felt unprepared for such a crisis. Further measures should be implemented in every hospital to maintain HCWs awareness and to prevent physical imbalance. Appropriate standards of care should be further stated by the authorities so that the healthcare providers may find easier a balance between their safety and their patients’ needs. Conducting qualitative research involving HCWs during pandemic times may help in informing more significant policy decisions.

At present, polyserositis (PS) remains a challenging entity, which resides both in the fact that there is confusion regarding the terminology, and that it is still understudied. We aimed to identify the etiologies of PS, reported in adult patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature on PubMed(MEDLINE) database, using the following (MESH) terms: pleurisy/etiology, pleural effusion/etiology, pericarditis/etiology, pericardial effusion/etiology, pericardial effusion chronic, ascites/etiology, ascitic fluid/etiology, polyserositis, serositis, and serositides. Results: A total of 1979 articles were identified, dating from 1973 onwards. After screening the articles, we included 114 patients from 23 articles (one case series including 92 patients and 22 case reports) in the final report. The most common diagnosis was neoplasia (30; 26.3%), followed by autoimmune diseases (19, 16.7%) and infections (16, 12.3%). Still, in 35 cases, the etiology of PS remained unkown. Conclusion: PS is a challenging and understudied entity, which is associated with a wide range of diagnoses. However, prospective studies should be developed in order to have a clear understanding regarding its etiologies and their prevalences.

The number of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 has skyrocketed in the past year. Concerns have been raised regarding their performance characteristics, depending on the disease severity and the time of the analysis post-symptom onset (PSO). Thus, independent validations using an unbiased sample selection are required for meaningful serology data interpretation. We aimed to assess the clinical performance of six commercially available assays, the seroconversion, and the dynamics of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study included 528 serum samples from 156 patients with follow-up visits up to six months PSO and 161 serum samples from healthy people. The IgG/total antibodies positive percentage increased and remained above 95% after six months when chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) IgG antiS1/S2 and electro-chemiluminescent assay (ECLIA) total antiNP were used. At early time points PSO, chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) IgM antiS achieved the best sensitivity. IgM and IgG appear simultaneously in most circumstances, and when performed in parallel the sensitivity increases. The severe and the moderate clinical forms were significantly associated with higher seropositivity percentage and antibody levels. High specificity was found in all evaluated assays, but the sensitivity was variable depending on the time PSO, severity of disease, detection method and targeted antigen.

Introduction There was no evidence concerning the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine, and only low‐grade evidence regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID‐19 patients. We performed a survey among Romanian physicians in order to see how many of them would administer prophylactically hydroxychloroquine to themselves or to people close to them, and if they would participate to a randomized controlled trial. Methods Between March 30 and April 02, 2020, a 16‐item questionnaire was shared in a Romanian Facebook group of 2645 physicians dedicated to COVID‐19 information, asking to be completed by physicians who could be directly involved in the care of these patients. Results A total of 785 answers were collected. Nine physicians (1.1%) thought that there was clear evidence on prescribing hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, 375 (48%) considered the evidence acceptable, 348 (44.3%) considered it weak, whereas 53 (6.8%) answered there was no evidence. 59 (7.5%) respondents were determined to take it (of which 31 = 4% already took), 192 (24.5%) were inclined to take, 271 (34.5%) were not decided yet. 175 (22.3%) of respondents declared they (would) give the treatment to their close ones, and this decision was associated with a higher age (P = 0.003), and the opinion that there was evidence (P < 0.001). When asked about the source of the treatment regimen, 286 (36.4%) indicated a scientific paper, while no scientific paper about the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine existed at that time. 718 (91.5%) considered a randomized clinical trial necessary (RCT), but only 333 (42.4%) answered they would enrol in such a trial. There was only a very weak correlation (Kendall's tau _b = 0.255, P < 0.001) between the belief that an RCT is necessary and the willingness to enrol in such an RCT. Conclusions Despite the lack of evidence, many physicians considered the evidence as existing, and were ready to take or to give hydroxychloroquine prophylactically to family. They considered an RCT necessary, but they were not willing to participate.