SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Outcome in Neuro-rehabilitation Patients Hospitalized at Neuroscience Hospital in Italy

Interrelationship between COVID-19 and Coagulopathy: Pathophysiological and Clinical Evidence

Since the first description of COVID-19 infection, among clinical manifestations of the disease, including fever, dyspnea, cough, and fatigue, it was observed a high incidence of thromboembolic events potentially evolving towards acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19-associated-coagulopathy (CAC). The hypercoagulation state is based on an interaction between thrombosis and inflammation. The so-called CAC represents a key aspect in the genesis of organ damage from SARS-CoV-2. The prothrombotic status of COVID-19 can be explained by the increase in coagulation levels of D-dimer, lymphocytes, fibrinogen, interleukin 6 (IL-6), and prothrombin time. Several mechanisms have been hypothesized to explain this hypercoagulable process such as inflammatory cytokine storm, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis for a long time. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the pathogenic mechanisms of coagulopathy that may characterize COVID-19 infection and inform on new areas of research. New vascular therapeutic strategies are also reviewed.

The Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Comorbidity and the Efficacy of Enoxaparin in Decreasing the Mortality Rate in Them: Single Egyptian Center Report

Patients with neurological comorbidities are more likely to develop severe COVID-19. We aimed to detect the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage comorbidity and the role of enoxaparin in decreasing the mortality rate in these cases, even though enoxaparin is a potential cause of intracerebral hemorrhage. The patients were checked on to detect surveillance outcomes, the relationship between mortality and patient characteristics, and the relationship between enoxaparin and study outcomes. Chest condition and GCS improved in 67.9% of participants. Hematoma course increased in 49.1%. Midline-shift, brain-edema, and COVID symptoms improved in 67.9%. There was a non-significant difference in mortality regarding age and gender. There was a significant difference in mortality regarding treatment with enoxaparin; 75% of the patients who did not receive enoxaparin died. 92.6% of the patients who showed decreases in hematoma course were administered enoxaparin. 76.9% of the patients who showed increases in hematoma-course were administered enoxaparin. Most of the patients who were admitted to the neurosurgical unit with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage acquired the COVID-19 infection. Most of the cases included in this study did not progress to severe cases. The dying patients showed deterioration in both neurological and COVID-19 symptoms. The anticoagulant properties of enoxaparin given earlier before and throughout the infection can considerably reduce mortality in COVID-19 individuals with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. It is recommended to use enoxaparin for cases with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and COVID-19 regardless of hematoma size because the rate of improvement was greater than the mortality rate after using enoxaparin in this study.

New endemic and pandemic pathologies with interhuman airborne transmission through ear, nose and throat anatomical sites

The current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has once again stigmatised the importance of airborne pathogens and their clinical, social and public health impact. Respiratory viruses are transmitted between individuals when the pathogen is released from the upper airways or from the lower respiratory tract of an infected individual. Airborne transmission is defined as the inhalation of the infectious aerosol, named droplet nuclei which size is smaller than 5 mm and that can be inhaled at a distance up to 2 metres. This route of transmission is relevant for viral respiratory pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, influenza virus, human rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory virus families that differ in viral and genomic structures, susceptibility of a population to the infection, severity, transmissibility, ways of transmission and seasonal recurrence. Human respiratory viruses generally infect cells of the upper respiratory tract, eliciting respiratory signs and symptoms, sometimes without the possibility to differentiate them clinically. As seen by the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, human respiratory viruses can substantially contribute to increased morbidity and mortality, economic losses and, eventually, social disruption. In this article, we describe the structural, clinical and transmission aspects of the main respiratory viruses responsible for endemic, epidemic and pandemic infections.

Potential Adverse Effects of Dexamethasone Therapy on COVID-19 Patients: Review and Recommendations

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the global healthcare community has raced to find effective therapeutic agents against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To date, dexamethasone is the first and an important therapeutic to significantly reduce the risk of death in COVID-19 patients with severe disease. Due to powerful anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects, dexamethasone could attenuate SARS-CoV-2-induced uncontrolled cytokine storm, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and lung injury. Nevertheless, dexamethasone treatment is a double-edged sword, as numerous studies have revealed that it has significant adverse impacts later in life. In this article, we reviewed the literature regarding the adverse effects of dexamethasone administration on different organ systems as well as related disease pathogenesis in an attempt to clarify the potential harms that may arise in COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone treatment. Overall, taking the threat of COVID­19 pandemic into account, we think it is necessary to apply dexamethasone as a pharmaceutical therapy in critical patients. However, its adverse side effects cannot be ignored. Our review will help medical professionals in the prognosis and follow-up of patients treated with dexamethasone. In addition, given that a considerable amount of uncertainty, confusion and even controversy still exist, further studies and more clinical trials are urgently needed to improve our understanding of the parameters and the effects of dexamethasone on patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes of a Large Cohort of COVID-19 Outpatients in Michigan

Background

Most outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) do not initially demonstrate severe features requiring hospitalization. Understanding this population’s epidemiological and clinical characteristics to allow outcome anticipation is crucial in healthcare resource allocation.

Methods

Retrospective, multicenter (8 hospitals) study reporting on 821 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs and discharged home to self-isolate after evaluation in emergency departments (EDs) within Beaumont Health System in March, 2020. Outcomes were collected through April 14, 2020, with a minimum of 12 day follow-up and included subsequent ED visit, admission status, and mortality.

Results

Of the 821 patients, mean age was 49.3 years (SD 15.7), 46.8% were male and 55.1% were African-American. Cough was the most frequent symptom in 78.2% of patients with a median duration of 3 days (IQR 2–7), and other symptoms included fever 62.1%, rhinorrhea or nasal congestion 35.1% and dyspnea 31.2%. ACEI/ARBs usage was reported in 28.7% patients and 34.0% had diabetes mellitus. Return to the ED for re-evaluation was reported in 19.2% of patients from whom 54.4% were admitted. The patients eventually admitted to the hospital were older (mean age 54.4 vs 48.7 years, p=0.002), had higher BMI (35.4 kg/m² vs 31.9 kg/m², p=0.004), were more likely male (58.1% vs 45.4%, p=0.026), and more likely to have hypertension (52.3% vs 29.4%, p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (74.4% vs 29.3%, p<0.001) or prediabetes (25.6% vs 8.4%, p<0.001), COPD (39.5% vs 5.4%, p<0.001), and OSA (36% vs 19%, p<0.001). The overall mortality rate was 1.3%.

Conclusion

We found that 80.8% of patients did not return to the ED for re-evaluation. Sending patients with COVID-19 home if they experience mild symptoms is a safe approach for most patients and might mitigate some of the financial and staffing pressures on healthcare systems.

First and second waves of coronavirus disease-19: A comparative study in hospitalized patients in Reus, Spain

Many countries have seen a two-wave pattern in reported cases of coronavirus disease-19 during the 2020 pandemic, with a first wave during spring followed by the current second wave in late summer and autumn. Empirical data show that the characteristics of the effects of the virus do vary between the two periods. Differences in age range and severity of the disease have been reported, although the comparative characteristics of the two waves still remain largely unknown. Those characteristics are compared in this study using data from two equal periods of 3 and a half months. The first period, between 15th March and 30th June, corresponding to the entire first wave, and the second, between 1st July and 15th October, corresponding to part of the second wave, still present at the time of writing this article. Two hundred and four patients were hospitalized during the first period, and 264 during the second period. Patients in the second wave were younger and the duration of hospitalization and case fatality rate were lower than those in the first wave. In the second wave, there were more children, and pregnant and post-partum women. The most frequent signs and symptoms in both waves were fever, dyspnea, pneumonia, and cough, and the most relevant comorbidities were cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic neurological diseases. Patients from the second wave more frequently presented renal and gastrointestinal symptoms, were more often treated with non-invasive mechanical ventilation and corticoids, and less often with invasive mechanical ventilation, conventional oxygen therapy and anticoagulants. Several differences in mortality risk factors were also observed. These results might help to understand the characteristics of the second wave and the behaviour and danger of SARS-CoV-2 in the Mediterranean area and in Western Europe. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

First and second waves of coronavirus disease-19: A comparative study in hospitalized patients in Reus, Spain

Many countries have seen a two-wave pattern in reported cases of coronavirus disease-19 during the 2020 pandemic, with a first wave during spring followed by the current second wave in late summer and autumn. Empirical data show that the characteristics of the effects of the virus do vary between the two periods. Differences in age range and severity of the disease have been reported, although the comparative characteristics of the two waves still remain largely unknown. Those characteristics are compared in this study using data from two equal periods of 3 and a half months. The first period, between 15^th March and 30^th June, corresponding to the entire first wave, and the second, between 1^st July and 15^th October, corresponding to part of the second wave, still present at the time of writing this article. Two hundred and four patients were hospitalized during the first period, and 264 during the second period. Patients in the second wave were younger and the duration of hospitalization and case fatality rate were lower than those in the first wave. In the second wave, there were more children, and pregnant and post-partum women. The most frequent signs and symptoms in both waves were fever, dyspnea, pneumonia, and cough, and the most relevant comorbidities were cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic neurological diseases. Patients from the second wave more frequently presented renal and gastrointestinal symptoms, were more often treated with non-invasive mechanical ventilation and corticoids, and less often with invasive mechanical ventilation, conventional oxygen therapy and anticoagulants. Several differences in mortality risk factors were also observed. These results might help to understand the characteristics of the second wave and the behaviour and danger of SARS-CoV-2 in the Mediterranean area and in Western Europe. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Heparin in COVID-19 Patients Is Associated with Reduced In-Hospital Mortality: The Multicenter Italian CORIST Study

INTRODUCTION

 A hypercoagulable condition was described in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and proposed as a possible pathogenic mechanism contributing to disease progression and lethality.

AIM

 We evaluated if in-hospital administration of heparin improved survival in a large cohort of Italian COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

 In a retrospective observational study, 2,574 unselected patients hospitalized in 30 clinical centers in Italy from February 19, 2020 to June 5, 2020 with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection were analyzed. The primary endpoint in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received heparin (low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH] or unfractionated heparin [UFH]) with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores.

RESULTS

 Out of 2,574 COVID-19 patients, 70.1% received heparin. LMWH was largely the most used formulation (99.5%). Death rates for patients receiving heparin or not were 7.4 and 14.0 per 1,000 person-days, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found a 40% lower risk of death in patients receiving heparin (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.74; E-value = 2.04). This association was particularly evident in patients with a higher severity of disease or strong coagulation activation.

CONCLUSION

 In-hospital heparin treatment was associated with a lower mortality, particularly in severely ill COVID-19 patients and in those with strong coagulation activation. The results from randomized clinical trials are eagerly awaited to provide clear-cut recommendations.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of September 30th, 2020

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 outbreak response requires identifying and understanding the long-term consequences of this new pathology and how to manage these. This living systematic review presents the most current and seminal information coming from the scientific literature. It is the monthly update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action Steering Committee. The aim of this review was to update the monthly COVID-19 and rehabilitation literature research up to September 30, 2020.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action was applied. The most important medical databases were searched, and papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarized descriptively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The database search retrieved 2526 publications. Duplicates were removed, and 1150 unique records were screened for inclusion. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 37 papers were included in the present review. According to OCEBM 2011 levels of evidence table, most studies (78.4%) fall within the level of evidence 4 category, while the remainder (22.6%) are categorized as level of evidence 3. Most studies described patients in acute (51.4%) or subacute (35.0%) phase, while no studies described the chronic consequences of COVID-19. Just one study dealt with rehabilitation interventions regarding COVID-19, and two discussed reorganization of rehabilitative services.

CONCLUSIONS

The most recently published COVID-19 research focuses more on describing the clinical presentations and the natural history of the pathology, rather than rehabilitation interventions or service delivery. Studies with high levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions, long-term monitoring, or new organization models remain lacking.