Characteristics of a COVID-19 Cohort With Large Vessel Occlusion: A Multicenter International Study.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms and outcomes in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-associated stroke are unique from those of non-COVID-19 stroke. OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and outcomes of acute revascularization of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the setting of COVID-19 in an international cohort. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study of consecutively admitted patients with COVID-19 with concomitant acute LVO across 50 comprehensive stroke centers. Our control group constituted historical controls of patients presenting with LVO and receiving a mechanical thrombectomy between January 2018 and December 2020. RESULTS: The total cohort was 575 patients with acute LVO; 194 patients had COVID-19 while 381 patients did not. Patients in the COVID-19 group were younger (62.5 vs 71.2; P < .001) and lacked vascular risk factors (49, 25.3% vs 54, 14.2%; P = .001). Modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 revascularization was less common in the COVID-19 group (74, 39.2% vs 252, 67.2%; P < .001). Poor functional outcome at discharge (defined as modified Ranklin Scale 3-6) was more common in the COVID-19 group (150, 79.8% vs 132, 66.7%; P = .004). COVID-19 was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.7; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.5; P = .002). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor outcomes in patients with stroke due to LVO. Patients with COVID-19 with LVO were younger, had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors, and suffered from higher morbidity/mortality rates.

International controlled study of revascularization and outcomes following COVID-positive mechanical thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that mechanisms and outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated stroke differ from those in patients with non-COVID-19-associated strokes, but there is limited comparative evidence focusing on these populations. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine if a significant association exists between COVID-19 status with revascularization and functional outcomes following thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion (LVO), after adjustment for potential confounding factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional, international multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients with concomitant acute LVO, compared to a control group without COVID-19. Data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, details of the involved vessels, procedural technique, and various outcomes. A multivariable-adjusted analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In this cohort of 697 patients with acute LVO, 302 had COVID-19 while 395 patients did not. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the mean age (in years) and gender of patients, with younger patients and more males in the COVID-19 group. In terms of favorable revascularization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] grade 3), COVID-19 was associated with lower odds of complete revascularization (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.48; p < 0.001), which persisted on multivariable modeling with adjustment for other predictors (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.77; p = 0.012). Moreover, endovascular complications, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher among COVID-19 patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor functional outcome in patients with stroke due to LVO. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients with LVO were more often younger and had higher morbidity/mortality rates.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). CONCLUSION: This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Age and Acute Ischemic Stroke Outcome in North American Patients With COVID-19.

Background Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in the context of COVID-19 has received considerable attention for its propensity to affect patients of all ages. We aimed to evaluate the effect of age on functional outcome and mortality following an acute ischemic event. Methods and Results A prospectively maintained database from comprehensive stroke centers in Canada and the United States was analyzed for patients with AIS from March 14 to September 30, 2020 who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The primary outcome was Modified Rankin Scale score at discharge, and the secondary outcome was mortality. Baseline characteristics, laboratory values, imaging, and thrombectomy workflow process times were assessed. Among all 126 patients with COVID-19 who were diagnosed with AIS, the median age was 63 years (range, 27-94). There were 35 (27.8%) patients with AIS in the aged ≤55 years group, 47 (37.3%) in the aged 56 to 70 group, and 44 (34.9%) in the aged >70 group. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and thrombectomy rates were comparable across these groups, (P=0.331 and 0.212, respectively). There was a significantly lower rate of mortality between each group favoring younger age (21.9% versus 45.0% versus 48.8%, P=0.047). After multivariable adjustment for possible confounders, a 1-year increase in age was significantly associated with fewer instances of a favorable outcome of Modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2 (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95 CI%, 0.90-0.99; P=0.048) and higher mortality (OR, 1.06; 95 CI%, 1.02-1.10; P=0.007). Conclusions AIS in the context of COVID-19 affects young patients at much greater rates than pre-pandemic controls. Nevertheless, instances of poor functional outcome and mortality are closely tied to increasing age.

Heat-related illnesses in a mass gathering event and the necessity for newer diagnostic criteria: a field study.

Heat-related illnesses (HRIs), mainly heat exhaustion (HE) and heat stroke (HS), are characterized by an elevation of core body temperature. In this study, we aimed to explore the HRIs' types and patient characteristics among a sample taken from various representative in-field points in the Hajj season. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2018 at 80 data collection points distributed in the field. Data related to demographics, features and risk factors were collected and analyzed from all encountered cases with suspected HRIs. Moreover, we developed a diagnostic tree for HRIs by using the XGBoost model. Out of the 1200 persons encountered during the study period, 231 fulfilled the criteria of HRIs spectrum and were included in this study. Around 6% had HS and 20% had HE. All HS cases (100%) were from outside of Saudi Arabia as compared with 72.5% diagnosed with HE (27.5% were from Saudi Arabia). In addition, 16% were considered as heat-induced muscle spasms, and 7% had limb heat edema. Additionally, most of HRIs cases were reported between 11 am and 1 pm. The HRIs diagnostic tree model gave a diagnostic accuracy of 93.6%. This study highlights the magnitude of HRIs among pilgrims in Hajj and provides a diagnostic tree that can aid in the risk stratification and diagnosis of these patients. We advise the implementation of more educational campaigns to pilgrims regarding preventable measures especially for the vulnerable groups (e.g. from outside Saudi Arabia, those with comorbidities and light-skinned people).

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

Outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients compared to the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). EXPERT OPINION: Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: -7.0 [95% CI: -14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: -5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: -5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events.Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment.Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.