Search

Background and aims: Currently, there are no definitive therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Gut microbial dysbiosis has been proved to be associated with COVID-19 severity and probiotics is an adjunctive therapy for COIVD-19. However, the potential benefit of probiotics in COVID-19 has not been studied. We aimed to assess the relationship of probiotics use with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a propensity-score matched retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients received either probiotics plus standard care (probiotics group) or standard care alone (non-probiotics group). The primary outcome was the clinical improvement rate, which was compared among propensity-score matched groups and in the unmatched cohort. Secondary outcomes included the duration of viral shedding, fever, and hospital stay. Results: Among the propensity-score matched groups, probiotics use was related to clinical improvement rates (log-rank p = 0.028). This relationship was driven primarily by a shorter (days) time to clinical improvement [difference, −3 (−4 to −1), p = 0.022], reduction in duration of fever [−1.0 (−2.0 to 0.0), p = 0.025], viral shedding [−3 (−6 to −1), p < 0.001], and hospital stay [−3 (−5 to −1), p = 0.009]. Using the Cox model with time-varying exposure, use of probiotics remained independently related to better clinical improvement rate in the unmatched cohort. Conclusion: Our study suggested that probiotics use was related to improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Further studies are required to validate the effect of probiotics in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Currently, there are no definitive therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Gut microbial dysbiosis has been proved to be associated with COVID-19 severity and probiotics is an adjunctive therapy for COIVD-19. However, the potential benefit of probiotics in COVID-19 has not been studied. We aimed to assess the relationship of probiotics use with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a propensity-score matched retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients received either probiotics plus standard care (probiotics group) or standard care alone (non-probiotics group). The primary outcome was the clinical improvement rate, which was compared among propensity-score matched groups and in the unmatched cohort. Secondary outcomes included the duration of viral shedding, fever, and hospital stay. Results: Among the propensity-score matched groups, probiotics use was related to clinical improvement rates (log-rank p = 0.028). This relationship was driven primarily by a shorter (days) time to clinical improvement [difference, −3 (−4 to −1), p = 0.022], reduction in duration of fever [−1.0 (−2.0 to 0.0), p = 0.025], viral shedding [−3 (−6 to −1), p < 0.001], and hospital stay [−3 (−5 to −1), p = 0.009]. Using the Cox model with time-varying exposure, use of probiotics remained independently related to better clinical improvement rate in the unmatched cohort. Conclusion: Our study suggested that probiotics use was related to improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Further studies are required to validate the effect of probiotics in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: As a result of the pandemic of COVID‐19, the public have been experiencing psychological distress. However, the prevalence of psychological distress during the COVID‐19 pandemic remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of psychological distress during COVID‐19 outbreak and their risk factors, especially their internal paths and causality. Methods: A nationwide cross‐sectional survey of the prevalence of mental disorders was conducted. We used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to estimate the prevalence of anxiety and depression. The internal paths and the causality of the psychological health were analyzed using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Results: A total of 24,789 respondents completed the survey. We found that the overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, combination of anxiety, and depression were 51.6% (95% CI: 51.0–52.2), 47.5% (95% CI: 46.9–48.1), and 24.5% (95% CI: 24.0–25.0), respectively. The risk of psychological disorders in men was higher than that in women. The status of psychological health was different across different age groups, education levels, occupations, and income levels. The SEM analysis revealed that inadequate material supplies, low income, low education, lack of knowledge or confidence of the epidemic, and lack of exercise are major risk factors for psychological distress. Conclusions: The evidence from this survey poses serious challenges related to the high prevalence of psychological distress, but also offers strategies to deal with the mental health problems caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]