Retrospective Evaluation of Seven Different Treatment Protocols in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Demir Önder, Kübra; Seremet Keskin, Aysegül; Berk Cam, Hande; Seyman, Derya; Öztoprak Çuvalci, Nefise

Background/ Aim: As the experience has increased regarding SARS-CoV-2 in time, treatment trends have changed since the beginning of the pandemic. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different treatment modalities for inpatients in a tertiary pandemic hospital in Antalya, Turkey. METHODS: Individuals aged 18 years and above tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in PCR with presenting COVID-related radiological findings, hospitalized for at least three days, and completed follow-up between March 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, were included in the study. Patients? data were reviewed retrospectively. Seven treatment groups based on the single or combined use of hydroxychloroquine, oseltamivir, favipiravir, and remdesivir were formed and compared in terms of mortality, survival, length of hospital stay, need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients were included in the study. The length of hospital stay, the need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation were lower in Group 1 (hydroxychloroquine) and Group 2 (hydroxychloroquine + oseltamivir) compared to the other groups (p<0.05). No significant difference was determined in survival between treatment groups. Analysis of prognostic factors affecting overall survival revealed that the need for intensive care and mechanical ventilation increased mortality [11.1 times (p<0.001) and 6.48 times (p<0.001), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was determined between different treatment protocols in terms of their impact on survival. To end the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to develop highly efficient, rapid-acting, and orally available antiviral drugs.