Exploring the Implications of New-Onset Diabetes in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

Post-viral new-onset diabetes has been an important feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not always clear if new-onset diabetes is the unmasking of a previously undiagnosed condition, the acceleration of prediabetes, or new-onset diabetes that would not have otherwise occurred. Even asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 have been associated with new-onset diabetes. Diabetes that emerges during acute COVID-19 infection tends to have an atypical presentation, characterized by hyperglycemia and potentially life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis. It is not always clear if new-onset diabetes is type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Many cases of COVID-associated diabetes appear to be type 1 diabetes, which is actually an autoimmune disorder. The clinical course varies temporally and with respect to outcomes; in some cases, diabetes resolves completely or improves incrementally after recovery from COVID-19. Disruptions in macrophagy caused by COVID-19 infection along with an exaggerated inflammatory response that can occur in COVID-19 also play a role. Those who survive COVID-19 remain at a 40% elevated risk for diabetes in the first year, even if their case of COVID-19 was not particularly severe. A subsequent post-pandemic wave of new diabetes patients may be expected.

What Do We Need to Know About Rising Rates of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis? A Narrative Review and Update.

The most common type of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia is idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), an irreversible, progressive disorder that has lately come into question for possible associations with COVID-19. With few geographical exceptions, IPF is a rare disease but its prevalence has been increasing markedly since before the pandemic. Environmental exposures are frequently implicated in IPF although genetic factors play a role as well. In IPF, healthy lung tissue is progressively replaced with an abnormal extracellular matrix that impedes normal alveolar function while, at the same time, natural repair mechanisms become dysregulated. While chronic viral infections are known risk factors for IPF, acute infections are not and the link to COVID-19 has not been established. Macrophagy may be a frontline defense against any number of inflammatory pulmonary diseases, and the inflammatory cascade that may occur in patients with COVID-19 may disrupt the activity of monocytes and macrophages in clearing up fibrosis and remodeling lung tissue. It is unclear if COVID-19 infection is a risk factor for IPF, but the two can occur in the same patient with complicating effects. In light of its increasing prevalence, further study of IPF and its diagnosis and treatment is warranted.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Maternal Mental Health and Medical Support.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that affected the overall mental health of the population. As seen in previous situations, there seemed to be an extreme impact of disasters on the mental health of pregnant women and new mothers; therefore, we investigated the relationship between COVID-19 and maternal mental health. The pregnant subjects were identified during the study period through convenience sampling. The study received Institutional Review Board approval and online surveys were sent to subjects via email. The questions were focused on feelings about being pregnant and the influence of the practices during the pandemic. Fifty-one (51) pregnant patients were identified. Our study found that 92.3% of the participants felt negatively, as the COVID-19 precautions did not permit their significant other to attend their routine prenatal visits with them. 64.7% felt that the visits were less personal, 100% felt that they had to take more precautions. Only 42% of the doctors of the subjects discussed how COVID-19 could affect the pregnancy and the baby. Pregnant subjects all had negative feelings towards the pandemic, routine precautions, and the inability to include significant others in prenatal visits and delivery. The majority did not feel their medical teams discussed how COVID-19 could affect the baby.

Potential neurological manifestations of COVID-19: a narrative review.

Neurological manifestations are increasingly reported in a subset of COVID-19 patients. Previous infections related to coronaviruses, namely Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) also appeared to have neurological effects on some patients. The viruses associated with COVID-19 like that of SARS enters the body via the ACE-2 receptors in the central nervous system, which causes the body to balance an immune response against potential damage to nonrenewable cells. A few rare cases of neurological sequelae of SARS and MERS have been reported. A growing body of evidence is accumulating that COVID-19, particularly in severe cases, may have neurological consequences although respiratory symptoms nearly always develop prior to neurological ones. Patients with preexisting neurological conditions may be at elevated risk for COVID-19-associated neurological symptoms. Neurological reports in COVID-19 patients have described encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myopathy, neuromuscular disorders, encephalitis, cephalgia, delirium, critical illness polyneuropathy, and others. Treating neurological symptoms can pose clinical challenges as drugs that suppress immune response may be contraindicated in COVID-19 patients. It is possible that in some COVID-19 patients, neurological symptoms are being overlooked or misinterpreted. To date, neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been described largely within the disease trajectory and the long-term effects of such manifestations remain unknown.

Fact vs Fallacy: The Anti-Vaccine Discussion Reloaded.

In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-vaccine sentiments have been on the rise, with a recent seminal study on the development of anti-vaccine views in social media even making its way into Nature Communications. Yet, with the current scientific consensus being in overwhelming agreement over the safety and efficacy of vaccines, many scientists lose their grasp on the fears, concerns, and arguments that the opposition may hold. This paper discusses and evaluates vaccine-hesitant individuals on a socioeconomic, historical, and philosophical landscape. It also provides an analysis of common argumentative patterns and the psychological impact that these arguments may have on undecided individuals. The discussion also explores why anti-vaccine sentiments are on the rise, and how members of the scientific and medical community require a more structured approach to communicating key arguments. This is particularly important if vaccination rates and herd immunity are to be sustained. No longer is it sufficient to win arguments based on a factual and scientific basis, but rather scientists and medical practitioners have to focus on conveying confidence and reassurance on both an informative and emotional level to those with doubts and fears.

The concern about ACE/ARB and COVID-19: Time to hold your horses!

Concern about coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) morbidity and mortality has drawn attention to the potential role of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) because the SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor as its point of entry into the body. It is not clear if and to what degree the SARS-CoV-2 virus affects the renin-angoiotensin system. Early studies from China which speculated on the role of ACE inhibition and ARBs did not evaluate the drug regimens. A vast body of evidence supports the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in hypertensive patients and patients with heart failure, and very little evidence has been acquired about their role in COVID-19. There is good evidence in support of the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in indicated patients with hypertension and heart failure, and clinicians should be reticent about abruptly withdrawing these drugs based on a paucity of evidence.

COVID-19 and NSAIDS: A Narrative Review of Knowns and Unknowns.

Concern about the appropriate role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in COVID-19 speculate that NSAIDs, in particular ibuprofen, may upregulate the entry point for the virus, the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors and increase susceptibility to the virus or worsen symptoms in existing disease. Adverse outcomes with COVID-19 have been linked to cytokine storm but the most effective way to address exaggerated inflammatory response is complex and unclear. The Expert Working Group on the Commission of Human Medicines in the UK and other organizations have stated that there is insufficient evidence to establish a link between ibuprofen and susceptibility to or exacerbation of COVID-19. NSAID use must also be categorized by whether the drugs are relatively low-dose over-the-counter oral products taken occasionally versus higher-dose or parenteral NSAIDs. Even if evidence emerged arguing for or against NSAIDs in this setting, it is unclear if this evidence would apply to all NSAIDs at all doses in all dosing regimens. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) has been proposed as an alternative to NSAIDs but there are issues with liver toxicity at high doses. There are clearly COVID-19 cases where NSAIDs should not be used, but there is no strong evidence that NSAIDs must be avoided in all patients with COVID-19; clinicians must weigh these choices on an individual basis.

The Current Clinically Relevant Findings on COVID-19 Pandemic.

The emergence of a novel coronavirus and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a challenge to global healthcare. In the past 20 years, this is the third coronavirus that jumped the species barrier and infected humans. It is highly contagious but associated with low pathogenicity. First identified in Wuhan, China, a city of over 11 million, the disease has since spread to every continent except Antarctica. About 15% to 20% of all cases may be called severe, and it is believed many cases are asymptomatic. The average age of a person with COVID has been reported as 49 years. Worse outcomes are associated with geriatric populations and those with underlying diseases such as cardiovascular, respiratory disorders, and/or diabetes. The coronavirus, like other coronaviruses, is highly contagious and has a latency period of about 14 days. Most patients present with fever and a dry cough, but fever may be absent. Differential diagnosis can be challenging since influenza may present with similar symptoms. Chest radiography or computed tomography may be used to find evidence of secondary pneumonia. Nosocomial infection is of concern, and it has been reported that 3.8% of all cases with COVID-19 in that country involve healthcare workers in China. Most patients have mild disease, and supportive care suffices. A variety of repurposed and investigational drugs are being evaluated. There are currently no antiviral therapies or vaccines, even if many therapies are proposed. Hand hygiene, social distancing, and scientifically sound information are the best strategies at the moment to combat this epidemic.