Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
1.
J Clin Invest ; 131(20)2021 10 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470551

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (n = 105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group and 32.7% in the control group (P = 0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (P = 0.27). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group and 51 days in the control group (P = 0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies, the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
2.
J Inflamm Res ; 14: 4651-4667, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1417004

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 comprises several severity stages ranging from oligosymptomatic disease to multi-organ failure and fatal outcomes. The mechanisms why COVID-19 is a mild disease in some patients and progresses to a severe multi-organ and often fatal disease with respiratory failure are not known. Biomarkers that predict the course of disease are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large spectrum of established laboratory measurements. Patients and Methods: Patients from the prospective PULMPOHOM and CORSAAR studies were recruited and comprised 35 patients with COVID-19, 23 with conventional pneumonia, and 28 control patients undergoing elective non-pulmonary surgery. Venous blood was used to measure the serum concentrations of 79 proteins by Luminex multiplex immunoassay technology. Distribution of biomarkers between groups and association with disease severity and outcomes were analyzed. Results: The biomarker profiles between the three groups differed significantly with elevation of specific proteins specific for the respective conditions. Several biomarkers correlated significantly with disease severity and death. Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) analysis revealed a significant separation of the three disease groups and separated between survivors and deceased patients. Different models were developed to predict mortality based on the baseline measurements of several protein markers. A score combining IL-1ra, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, SCF and CA-9 was associated with significantly higher mortality (AUC 0.929). Discussion: Several newly identified blood markers were significantly increased in patients with severe COVID-19 (AAT, EN-RAGE, myoglobin, SAP, TIMP-1, vWF, decorin) or in patients that died (IL-1ra, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, SCF, CA-9). The use of established assay technologies allows for rapid translation into clinical practice.

3.
Intensive Care Med Exp ; 9(1): 45, 2021 Sep 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394470

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous advances in the identification of risk factors for the development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), factors that promote recovery from COVID-19 remain unknown. Natural killer (NK) cells provide innate immune defense against viral infections and are known to be activated during moderate and severe COVID-19. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) mediate NK cell cytotoxicity through recognition of an altered MHC-I expression on infected target cells. However, the influence of KIR genotype on outcome of patients with COVID-19 has not been investigated so far. We retrospectively analyzed the outcome associations of NK cell count and KIR genotype of patients with COVID-19 related severe ARDS treated on our tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) between February and June 2020 and validated our findings in an independent validation cohort of patients with moderate COVID-19 admitted to our tertiary medical center. RESULTS: Median age of all patients in the discovery cohort (n = 16) was 61 years (range 50-71 years). All patients received invasive mechanical ventilation; 11 patients (68%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients who recovered from COVID-19 had significantly higher median NK cell counts during the whole observational period compared to patients who died (121 cells/µL, range 16-602 cells/µL vs 81 cells/µL, range 6-227 cells/µL, p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with shorter time to recovery (21.6 ± 2.8 days vs. 44.6 ± 2.2 days, p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with freedom from transfer to ICU (0% vs 9%, p-value = 0.04) in the validation cohort which consisted of 65 patients with moderate COVID-19. CONCLUSION: NK cells and KIR genotype might have an impact on recovery from COVID-19.

5.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286808

ABSTRACT

This correspondence argues that data presented previously cannot justify a novel approach for treating hypoxic patients with severe #COVID19 https://bit.ly/3dLaPlk.

6.
J Anesth ; 35(5): 625-632, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281280

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome). METHODS: Charts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded. RESULTS: Patients' age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60-68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21-50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml∙h-1; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg∙hour-1∙kg-1ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720-960] versus 1080 [720-1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (- 4.0 [- 4.0 to - 3.0] versus - 3.0 [- 3.6 to - 2.5]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Isoflurane , Propofol , Conscious Sedation , Critical Illness , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Isoflurane/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Case Rep Pulmonol ; 2021: 5546723, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255645

ABSTRACT

Background: In 2020, a novel coronavirus caused a global pandemic with a clinical picture termed COVID-19, accounting for numerous cases of ARDS. However, there are still other infectious causes of ARDS that should be considered, especially as the majority of these pathogens are specifically treatable. Case Presentation. We present the case of a 36-year-old gentleman who was admitted to the hospital with flu-like symptoms, after completing a half-marathon one week before admission. As infection with SARS-CoV-2 was suspected based on radiologic imaging, the hypoxemic patient was immediately transferred to the ICU, where he developed ARDS. Empiric antimicrobial chemotherapy was initiated, the patient deteriorated further, therapy was changed, and the patient was transferred to a tertiary care ARDS center. As cold agglutinins were present, the hypothesis of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 was then questioned. Bronchoscopic sampling revealed Mycoplasma (M.) pneumoniae. When antimicrobial chemotherapy was adjusted, the patient recovered quickly. Conclusion: Usually, M. pneumoniae causes mild disease. When antimicrobial chemotherapy was adjusted, the patient recovered quickly. The case underlines the importance to adhere to established treatment guidelines, scrutinize treatment modalities, and not to forget other potential causes of severe pneumonia or ARDS.

11.
Eur J Immunol ; 51(6): 1449-1460, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1159935

ABSTRACT

The pathogenesis of autoimmune complications triggered by SARS-CoV2 has not been completely elucidated. Here, we performed an analysis of the cellular immune status, cell ratios, and monocyte populations of patients with COVID-19 treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) (cohort 1, N = 23) and normal care unit (NCU) (cohort 2, n = 10) compared with control groups: patients treated in ICU for noninfectious reasons (cohort 3, n = 30) and patients treated in NCU for infections other than COVID-19 (cohort 4, n = 21). Patients in cohort 1 presented significant differences in comparison with the other cohorts, including reduced frequencies of lymphocytes, reduced CD8+T-cell count, reduced percentage of activated and intermediate monocytes and an increased B/T8 cell ratio. Over time, patients in cohort 1 who died presented with lower counts of B, T, CD4+ T, CD8+ T-lymphocytes, NK cells, and activated monocytes. The B/T8 ratio was significantly lower in the group of survivors. In cohort 1, significantly higher levels of IgG1 and IgG3 were found, whereas cohort 3 presented higher levels of IgG3 compared to controls. Among many immune changes, an elevated B/T8-cell ratio and a reduced rate of activated monocytes were mainly observed in patients with severe COVID-19. Both parameters were associated with death in cohort 1.


Subject(s)
B-Lymphocytes/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Monocytes/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , B-Lymphocytes/pathology , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/pathology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/pathology , COVID-19/pathology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Monocytes/pathology , Prospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index
12.
Membranes (Basel) ; 11(3)2021 Feb 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1121711

ABSTRACT

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V­V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. RESULTS: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic-AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. CONCLUSIONS: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V­V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO.

13.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(6): 655-663, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119374

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that COVID-19-associated severe respiratory failure (CARDS) might differ from usual acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to failing autoregulation of pulmonary vessels and higher shunt. We sought to investigate pulmonary hemodynamics and ventilation properties in patients with CARDS compared to patients with ARDS of pulmonary origin. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 patients treated in our ICU in 04/2020 and a comparison of the data to matched controls with ARDS due to respiratory infections treated in our ICU from 01/2014 to 08/2019 for whom pulmonary artery catheter data were available. RESULTS: CARDS patients (n = 10) had ventilation characteristics similar to those of ARDS (n = 10) patients. Nevertheless, mechanical power applied by ventilation was significantly higher in CARDS patients (23.4 ± 8.9 J/min) than in ARDS (15.9 ± 4.3 J/min; P < 0.05). COVID-19 patients had similar pulmonary artery pressure but significantly lower pulmonary vascular resistance, as cardiac output was higher in CARDS vs. ARDS patients (P < 0.05). Shunt fraction and dead space were similar in CARDS compared to ARDS (P > 0.05) and were correlated with hypoxemia in both groups. The arteriovenous pCO2 difference (▵pCO2) was elevated (CARDS 5.5 ± 2.8 mmHg vs. ARDS 4.7 ± 1.1 mmHg; P > 0.05), as was the P(v-a)CO2/C(a-v)O2 ratio (CARDS mean 2.2 ± 1.5 vs. ARDS 1.7 ± 0.8; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients seems to differ only slightly from ARDS regarding ventilation characteristics and pulmonary hemodynamics. Our data indicate microcirculatory dysfunction. More data need to be collected to assure these findings and gain more pathophysiological insights into COVID-19 and respiratory failure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cardiac Output/physiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Vascular Resistance/physiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Artery , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Retrospective Studies
15.
Artif Organs ; 45(5): 495-505, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085292

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Critical Illness , Humans , Internationality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(5): 629-632, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967889

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Changes in pulmonary hemodynamics and ventilation/perfusion were proposed as hallmarks of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) may overcome these issues and improve arterial oxygenation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed arterial oxygenation and pulmonary vasoreactivity in seven COVID-19 ARDS patients receiving 20 ppm iNO for 15-30 minutes. RESULTS: The inhalation of NO significantly improved oxygenation. All patients with severe ARDS had higher partial pressures of oxygen and reduced pulmonary vascular resistance. Significant changes in pulmonary shunting were not observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, iNO could provide immediate help and delay respiratory deterioration in COVID-19-induced moderate to severe ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Nitric Oxide/administration & dosage , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Inhalation , COVID-19/complications , Hemodynamics , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Retrospective Studies
17.
EClinicalMedicine ; 28: 100616, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917286
18.
Am J Transplant ; 21(4): 1586-1596, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883239

ABSTRACT

It is unknown if solid organ transplant recipients are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. The management of a lung transplantation (LTx) program and the therapeutic strategies to adapt the immunosuppressive regimen and antiviral measures is a major issue in the COVID-19 era, but little is known about worldwide practice. We sent out to 180 LTx centers worldwide in June 2020 a survey with 63 questions, both regarding the management of a LTx program in the COVID-19 era and the therapeutic strategies to treat COVID-19 LTx recipients. We received a total of 78 responses from 15 countries. Among participants, 81% declared a reduction of the activity and 47% restricted LTx for urgent cases only. Sixteen centers observed deaths on waiting listed patients and eight centers performed LTx for COVID-19 disease. In 62% of the centers, COVID-19 was diagnosed in LTx recipients, most of them not severe cases. The most common immunosuppressive management included a decreased dose or pausing of the cell cycle inhibitors. Remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin were the most proposed antiviral strategies. Most of the centers have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and proposed an active therapeutic strategy to treat LTx recipients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Lung Transplantation , Pandemics , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Transplant Recipients , Waiting Lists
19.
JCI Insight ; 5(20)2020 10 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-877604

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDPatients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) differ in the severity of disease. We hypothesized that characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity correlate with disease severity.METHODSIn this study, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and antibodies were characterized in uninfected controls and patients with different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease severity. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were flow cytometrically quantified after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and analyzed for expression of cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, and TNF-α) and markers for activation, proliferation, and functional anergy. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA antibodies were quantified using ELISA. Moreover, global characteristics of lymphocyte subpopulations were compared between patient groups and uninfected controls.RESULTSDespite severe lymphopenia affecting all major lymphocyte subpopulations, patients with severe disease mounted significantly higher levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells as compared with convalescent individuals. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells dominated over CD8+ T cells and closely correlated with the number of plasmablasts and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG levels. Unlike in convalescent patients, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in patients with severe disease showed marked alterations in phenotypical and functional properties, which also extended to CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in general.CONCLUSIONGiven the strong induction of specific immunity to control viral replication in patients with severe disease, the functionally altered characteristics may result from the need for contraction of specific and general immunity to counteract excessive immunopathology in the lung.FUNDINGThe study was supported by institutional funds to MS and in part by grants of Saarland University, the State of Saarland, and the Rolf M. Schwiete Stiftung.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Cytokines/blood , Leukocyte Count , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , T-Lymphocytes , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/classification , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Correlation of Data , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Leukocyte Count/methods , Leukocyte Count/statistics & numerical data , Lymphocyte Subsets/classification , Male , Metabolic Diseases/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , T-Lymphocytes/classification , T-Lymphocytes/virology
20.
Radiologe ; 60(10): 916-918, 2020 Oct.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-856131

ABSTRACT

Shortly after the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic there was also an increasing number of reports of neurological complications in infected patients. Many case reports and case series described associated diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems and cerebrovascular complications. This review article provides a short overview of the currently confusing picture of recent findings.


Subject(s)
Cerebrovascular Disorders/virology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Nervous System Diseases/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...