Outcome of Patients Treated by Intravitreal Injections During the COVID-19 Lockdown: An Institutional Experience.

PURPOSE: To determine the loss of follow-up ratio and reasons during the COVID-19 lockdown in patients with retinal diseases treated by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections and to report the visual outcome and rate of complications of these patients 1 year after the end of the lockdown. METHODS: This is a prospective descriptive cohort study (NCT04395859) conducted at the Rothschild Foundation Hospital - Paris between April 2020 and May 2021. Patients with retinal diseases treated by repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI) since before October 2019 were included. They filled-out a questionnaire and were followed up during a period of 1 year. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 lockdown 198 eyes (82.5%) of 157 patients (82.6%) received their injections in a timely manner (group 1) while 42 eyes (17.5%) of 33 patients (17.4%) had their injections delayed or missed (group 2). No statistically significant difference was found between group 1 and group 2 when comparing the change of mean best corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA) between month 12 and inclusion (p = 0.6) and the rate of ocular complications. The most frequent reasons for missing scheduled injections are appointments cancellation by the hospital (12 patients, 36%), fear of virus exposure during transportation (7 patients, 21%) or at the hospital (5 patients, 15%). Eighty-four percent (130/157 patients) of patients who attended their appointment were satisfied by the protective measures used in the hospital. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 lockdown did not seem to negatively affect the 1-year outcome of patients with retinal diseases treated by anti-VEGF IVIs who missed their scheduled injections. The BCVA and rate of complications at 1 year did not differ whether patients missed their scheduled injections or not. Maintaining IVIs during lockdown periods and educating patients about the risks of missing injections are pivotal in improving prognosis of retinal diseases.

Auricular Neuromodulation for Mass Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Insights From SOS COVID-19 a Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind French Pilot Study.

Importance: An exacerbated inflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is believed to be one of the major causes of the morbidity and mortality of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Neuromodulation therapy, based on vagus nerve stimulation, was recently hypothesized to control both the SARS-CoV-2 replication and the ensuing inflammation likely through the inhibition of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells pathway and could improve the clinical outcomes as an adjunct treatment. We proposed to test it by the stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve, i.e., auricular neuromodulation (AN), a non-invasive procedure through the insertion of semipermanent needles on the ears. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of AN on the clinical outcomes in patients affected by COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial included 31 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Within 72 h after admission, patients received either AN (n = 14) or sham neuromodulation (SN, n = 15) in addition to the conventional treatments. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of a clinical benefit conferred by AN at Day 14 (D14) as assessed by a 7-point Clinical Progression Scale. The secondary endpoint of the study was the impact of AN on the rate of transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and on the survival rate at D14. Results: The AN procedure was well-tolerated without any reported side effects but with no significant improvement for the measures of both primary (p > 0.3) and secondary (p > 0.05) endpoints at the interim analysis. None of the AN-treated patients died but one in the SN group did (81 years). Two AN-treated patients (73 and 79 years, respectively) and one SN-treated patient (59 years) were transferred to ICU. Remarkably, AN-treated patients were older with more representation by males than in the SN arm (i.e., the median age of 75 vs. 65 years, 79% male vs. 47%). Conclusion: The AN procedure, which was used within 72 h after the admission of patients with COVID-19, was safe and could be successfully implemented during the first two waves of COVID-19 in France. Nevertheless, AN did not significantly improve the outcome of the patients in our small preliminary study. It is pertinent to explore further to validate AN as the non-invasive mass vagal stimulation solution for the forthcoming pandemics. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [NCT04341415].

COVID-19-Related Food Insecurity Among Households with Dietary Restrictions: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity dramatically increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, little is known about pandemic-related food insecurity in households with dietary restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To examine pre-pandemic rates of and pandemic-related change in food insecurity among households with and without dietary restrictions. METHODS: A cross-sectional, panel-based survey of 3200 U.S. women was conducted in April 2020. Pre-pandemic food insecurity and early pandemic-related change in food insecurity were assessed using the adapted Hunger Vital Sign. Weighted, multivariate logistic regression was used to model the odds of pre-pandemic food insecurity and the odds of incident or worsening pandemic-related food insecurity among households with and without dietary restrictions. In models predicting pandemic-related outcomes, interaction effects between race/ethnicity and dietary restrictions were examined. RESULTS: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, households with self-reported food allergy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.9), celiac disease (aOR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.4-3.5), or both (aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.6) were significantly more likely to be food insecure than households without restrictions. Households with dietary restrictions were also significantly more likely to experience incident or worsening food insecurity during the early pandemic (food allergy: aOR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-2.1) (celiac disease: aOR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5-3.5) (both: aOR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.4). Race/ethnicity was not a significant moderator of the relationship between dietary restrictions and pandemic-related food insecurity. CONCLUSION: Households with dietary restrictions were more likely to experience both pre-pandemic and pandemic-related incident or worsening food insecurity than households without restrictions. Clinical care for patients with dietary restrictions requires attention to food insecurity.