Pneumomediastinum in the COVID-19 era: to drain or not to drain?

Pneumomediastinum (PNM) is a rare clinical finding, usually with a benign course, which is managed conservatively in the majority of cases. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, an increased incidence of PNM has been observed. Several reports of PNM cases in COVID-19 have been reported in the literature and were managed either conservatively or surgically. In this study, we present our institutional experience of COVID-19 associated PNM, propose a management algorithm, and review the current literature. In total, 43 Case Series were identified, including a total of 747 patients, of whom 374/747 (50.1%) were intubated at the time of diagnosis, 168/747 (22.5%) underwent surgical drain insertion at admission, 562/747 (75.2%) received conservative treatment (observation or mechanical ventilation. Inpatient mortality was 51.8% (387/747), while 45.1% of the population recovered and/or was discharged (337/747). In conclusion, with increased incidence of PNM in COVID-19 patients reported in the literature, it is still difficult to assign a true causal relationship between PNM and mortality. We can, however, see that PMN plays an important role in disease prognosis.  Due to increased complexity, high mortality, and associated complications, conservative management may not be sufficient, and a surgical approach is needed.

Health worker education during the COVID-19 pandemic: global disruption, responses and lessons for the future-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified early evidence quantifying the disruption to the education of health workers by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuing policy responses and their outcomes. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol and PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 guidelines, we systematically screened MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar from January 2020 to July 2022. We pooled proportion estimates via random-effects meta-analyses and explored subgroup differences by gender, occupational group, training stage, WHO regions/continents, and study end-year. We assessed risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, RοB2 for randomized controlled trials [RCT]) and rated evidence certainty using GRADE. RESULTS: Of the 171 489 publications screened, 2 249 were eligible, incorporating 2 212 observational studies and 37 RCTs, representing feedback from 1 109 818 learners and 22 204 faculty. The sample mostly consisted of undergraduates, medical doctors, and studies from institutions in Asia. Perceived training disruption was estimated at 71.1% (95% confidence interval 67.9-74.2) and learner redeployment at 29.2% (25.3-33.2). About one in three learners screened positive for anxiety (32.3%, 28.5-36.2), depression (32.0%, 27.9-36.2), burnout (38.8%, 33.4-44.3) or insomnia (30.9%, 20.8-41.9). Policy responses included shifting to online learning, innovations in assessment, COVID-19-specific courses, volunteerism, and measures for learner safety. For outcomes of policy responses, most of the literature related to perceptions and preferences. More than two-thirds of learners (75.9%, 74.2-77.7) were satisfied with online learning (postgraduates more than undergraduates), while faculty satisfaction rate was slightly lower (71.8%, 66.7-76.7). Learners preferred an in-person component: blended learning 56.0% (51.2-60.7), face-to-face 48.8% (45.4-52.1), and online-only 32.0% (29.3-34.8). They supported continuation of the virtual format as part of a blended system (68.1%, 64.6-71.5). Subgroup differences provided valuable insights despite not resolving the considerable heterogeneity. All outcomes were assessed as very-low-certainty evidence. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted health worker education, inflicting a substantial mental health burden on learners. Its impacts on career choices, volunteerism, pedagogical approaches and mental health of learners have implications for educational design, measures to protect and support learners, faculty and health workers, and workforce planning. Online learning may achieve learner satisfaction as part of a short-term solution or integrated into a blended model in the post-pandemic future.

Career barriers for women in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing numbers of female medical students, surgery remains male-dominated. PURPOSE: To highlight the principal career obstacles experienced by aspiring female surgeons. METHODS: A narrative review of literature on the position and career barriers of female surgeons has been conducted, using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. MAIN FINDINGS: Implicit and even explicit biases against female surgeons remain prevalent, negatively impacting their training performance and overall professional trajectory. Female surgeons are globally underrepresented in leadership positions and senior academic rankings, especially that of a full professor. They feel hampered by lack of effective mentorship, whose value for a successful career has been acknowledged by all medical students, surgeons and surgical leaders. Their work-life imbalance is sometimes expressed as lower likelihood than their male contemporaries of getting married or having children and may be attributed to their conventional association with the role of caretaker, their personal desire to accommodate occupational and family duties and the inadequate implementation of parental leave and childcare policies. Female surgeons' "infertility" may be further explained by direct and indirect pregnancy-related difficulties. Female surgeons are also financially undercompensated compared to their male contemporaries. Finally, specialty-specific challenges should not be overlooked. CONCLUSIONS: While encouraging steps have been made, women in surgery feel still hindered by various obstacles. The qualitative, interview-based nature of current literature requires more meticulous studies on these barriers with a more quantitative and objective approach. Attenuation of gender imbalance in surgical specialties requires further changes in mentality and more targeted modifications in relevant policies.

Plitidepsin: Mechanisms and Clinical Profile of a Promising Antiviral Agent against COVID-19.

Current standard treatment of COVID-19 lacks in effective antiviral options. Plitidepsin, a cyclic depsipeptide authorized in Australia for patients with refractory multiple myeloma, has recently emerged as a candidate anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. The aim of this review was to summarize current knowledge on plitidepsin's clinical profile, anti-tumour and anti-SARS-CoV-2 mechanisms and correlate this with available or anticipated, preclinical or clinical evidence on the drug's potential for COVID-19 treatment.PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv and bioRxiv databases were searched.Plitidepsinexerts its anti-tumour and antiviral properties primarily through acting on isoforms of the host cell's eukaryotic-translation-elongation-factor-1-alpha (eEF1A). Through inhibiting eEF1A and therefore translation of necessary viral proteins, it behaves as a "host-directed" anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. In respect to its potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 properties, the drug has demonstrated superior ex vivo efficacy compared to other host-directed agents and remdesivir, and it might retain its antiviral effect against the more transmittable B.1.1.7 variant. Its well-studied safety profile, also in combination with dexamethasone, may accelerate its repurposing chances for COVID-19 treatment. Preliminary findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, have suggested potential safety and efficacy of plitidepsin, in terms of viral load reduction and clinical resolution. However, the still incomplete understanding of its exact integration into host cell-SARS-CoV-2 interactions, its intravenous administration exclusively purposing it for hospital settings the and precocity of clinical data are currently considered its chief deficits. A phase III trial is being planned to compare the plitidepsin-dexamethasone regimen to the current standard of care only in moderately affected hospitalized patients. Despite plitidepsin's preclinical efficacy, current clinical evidence is inadequate for its registration in COVID-19 patients.Therefore, multicentre trials on the drug's efficacy, potentially also studying populations of emerging SARS-CoV-2 lineages, are warranted.

Management and Prevention of COVID-19 in Pregnancy and Pandemic Obstetric Care: A Review of Current Practices.

Constant accumulation of data results in continuous updates of guidelines and recommendations on the proper management of pregnant women with COVID-19. This study aims to summarize the up-to-date information about the prevention and management of suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in obstetric patients and obstetric care during prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed for relevant English-written full-text reviews. We also included relevant guidelines and recommendations. In women with a low risk for infection and uncomplicated pregnancy, elective and non-urgent appointments should be postponed or completed through telehealth. Vaccination should be discussed and distance and personal hygiene preventive measures should be recommended. Routine ultrasound examinations should be adjusted in order to minimize exposure to the virus. Standardized criteria should evaluate the need for admission. Women with moderate/high-risk for infection should be isolated and tested with RT-PCR. The mode and timing of delivery should follow routine obstetric indications. In case of infection, glucocorticoids are recommended in critically ill pregnant women, after individualized evaluation. During labor and concomitant infection, the duration of the first two stages should be reduced as possible to decrease aerosolization, while minimization of hemorrhage is essential during the third stage. Close maternal monitoring and adequate oxygenation when necessary always remain a prerequisite. Discharge should be considered on the first or second day postpartum, also depending on delivery mode. Breastfeeding with protective equipment is recommended, as its benefits outweigh the risks of neonatal infection. Recommendations are currently based on limited available data. More original studies on infected pregnant women are needed to establish totally evidence-based protocols of care for these patients.

Medical education challenges and innovations during COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the well-established, traditional structure of medical education. Τhe new limitations of physical presence have accelerated the development of an online learning environment, comprising both of asynchronous and synchronous distance education, and the introduction of novel ways of student assessment. At the same time, this prolonged crisis had serious implications on the lives of medical students including their psychological well-being and the impact on their academic trajectories. The new reality has, on many occasions, triggered the 'acting up' of medical students as frontline healthcare staff, which has been perceived by many of them as a positive learning and contributing experience, and has led to a variety of responses from the educational institutions. All things considered, the urgency for rapid and novel adaptations to the new circumstances has functioned as a springboard for remarkable innovations in medical education,including the promotion of a more "evidence-based" approach.

Maternal and Neonatal Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 in Pregnancy: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

(1) Background: A considerable number of systematic reviews, with substantial heterogeneity regarding their methods and included populations, on the impact of COVID-19 on infected pregnant women and their neonates, has emerged. The aim was to describe the obstetric-perinatal and neonatal outcome of infected pregnant women and their newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Methods: Three bibliographical databases were searched (last search: September 10, 2020). Quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Primary outcomes included mode of delivery, preterm delivery/labor, premature rupture of membranes (PROM/pPROM) and abortions/miscarriages. Outcomes were mainly presented as ranges. A separate analysis, including only moderate and high-quality systematic reviews, was also conducted. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020214447); (3) Results: Thirty-nine reviews were analyzed. Reported rates, regarding both preterm and term gestations, varied between 52.3 and 95.8% for cesarean sections; 4.2-44.7% for vaginal deliveries; 14.3-63.8% specifically for preterm deliveries and 22.7-32.2% for preterm labor; 5.3-12.7% for PROM and 6.4-16.1% for pPROM. Maternal anxiety for potential fetal infection contributed to abortion decisions, while SARS-CoV-2-related miscarriages could not be excluded. Maternal ICU admission and mechanical ventilation rates were 3-28.5% and 1.4-12%, respectively. Maternal mortality rate was <2%, while stillbirth, neonatal ICU admission and mortality rates were <2.5%, 3.1-76.9% and <3%, respectively. Neonatal PCR positivity rates ranged between 1.6% and 10%. After accounting for quality of studies, ranges of our primary outcomes remained almost unchanged, while among our secondary outcomes, maternal ICU admission (3-10%) and mechanical ventilation rates (1.4-5.5%) were found to be relatively lower; (4) Conclusions: Increased rates of cesarean sections and preterm birth rates were found, with iatrogenic reasons potentially involved. In cases of symptomatic women with confirmed infection, high maternal and neonatal ICU admission rates should raise some concerns. The probability of vertical transmission cannot be excluded. Further original studies on women from all trimesters are warranted.