Characteristics of sudden hearing loss after different COVID-19 vaccinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are essential to prevent complications and reduce the burden of SARS-CoV-2. However, these vaccines showed side effects such as fatigue, pain, fever, and rarely hearing loss. In this review, we aim to summarize studies investigating hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccination and try to find the possible association and risk factors for this hazardous complication. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, google scholar, Cochrane) from inception until 9 October 2022. We finally included 16 studies after the first and second scans. We used SPSS to analyze the extracted data. RESULTS: A total of 630 patients were identified, with a mean age of 57.3. Of the patients, 328 out of 609 vaccinated patients took the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, while 242 (40%) took the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The mean time from vaccination to hearing impairment was 6.2, ranging from a few hours to one month after the last dose. The results found a significant difference between vaccine types in terms of incidence and prognosis of the condition, while they showed that the number of doses prior to the onset had no significance. CONCLUSION: SNHL has been reported in a small number of people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, but it is unclear at this time whether the vaccine is directly causing this condition. However, the COVID-19 vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing illness, and the benefits of vaccination are significant compared to any potential risks. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this study was registered on Prospero CRD42022367180.

Tranexamic acid for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2991 patients.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize evidence from published clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) administration in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). METHODS: We followed the standard methods of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews for interventions and the PRISMA statement guidelines 2020 when conducting and reporting this study. A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from inception until 1 January 2022. We selected observational studies and clinical trials comparing TXA versus no TXA in aSAH patients. Data of all outcomes were pooled as the risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals in the meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 2991 patients were included in the analysis. TXA could significantly cut the risk of rebleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72) and mortality from rebleeding (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92, p = 0.02). However, TXA did not significantly improve the overall mortality, neurological outcome, delayed cerebral ischemia, or hydrocephalus (all p > 0.05). In terms of safety, no significant adverse events were reported. No statistical heterogeneity or publication bias was found in all outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients with aSAH, TXA significantly reduces the incidence of rebleeding and mortality from rebleeding. However, current evidence does not support any benefits in overall mortality, neurological outcome, delayed cerebral ischemia, or hydrocephalus.

Intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion; should we cross that bridge? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36,123 patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) is a debatable subject in the field of neuro-interventional surgery. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence from published studies on the outcomes of IVT + MT compared with MT alone in AIS-LVO patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2022 for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. Eligible studies were identified, and all relevant outcomes were pooled in the meta-analysis DerSimonian-Liard random-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies, with a total of 36,123 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. IVT + MT was significantly superior to MT alone in terms of successful recanalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.09), mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82), favorable functional outcome (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29), and complete recanalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of improvement of the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 h or at discharge (p > 0.05). Complications including symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), procedure-related complications, and parenchymal hematoma were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For AIS-LVO, IVT + MT is associated with slightly better rates of survival, successful and complete recanalization, and favorable functional outcome as compared with MT alone. Further clinical trials are needed to corroborate such benefits of bridging IVT.

A Literature Review of Traumatic Brain Injury Biomarkers.

Research into TBI biomarkers has accelerated rapidly in the past decade owing to the heterogeneous nature of TBI pathologies and management, which pose challenges to TBI evaluation, management, and prognosis. TBI biomarker proteins resulting from axonal, neuronal, or glial cell injuries are widely used and have been extensively studied. However, they might not pass the blood-brain barrier with sufficient amounts to be detected in peripheral blood specimens, and further might not be detectable in the cerebrospinal fluid owing to flow limitations triggered by the injury itself. Despite the advances in TBI research, there is an unmet clinical need to develop and identify novel TBI biomarkers that entirely correlate with TBI pathologies on the molecular level, including mild TBI, and further enable physicians to predict patient outcomes and allow researchers to test neuroprotective agents to limit the extents of injury. Although the extracellular vesicles have been identified and studied long ago, they have recently been revisited and repurposed as potential TBI biomarkers that overcome the many limitations of the traditional blood and CSF assays. Animal and human experiments demonstrated the accuracy of several types of exosomes and miRNAs in detecting mild, moderate, and severe TBI. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the traditional TBI biomarkers that are helpful in clinical practice. Also, we highlight the emerging roles of exosomes and miRNA being the promising candidates under investigation of current research.

Nipah Virus: An Updated Review and Emerging Challenges.

Many hospitals are teetering on the edge of being overwhelmed, with many already there because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, a recent report has also warned about the Nipah virus (NiV). NiV is a pleomorphic enveloped virus that belongs to the Paramyxoviridae family (genus Henipavirus); it affects both the respiratory and central nervous systems, with a fatality rate ranging from 40% to 75%, as documented by the World Health Organization. The first reported NiV outbreak was in early 1999 in Malaysia among people who contacted infected pigs. NiV also affected Bangladesh and India, where the main infection route was the consumption of raw date palm sap contaminated by bats. The World Health Organization has listed NiV as one of the emerging pathogens that can lead to severe outbreaks at any moment in the future with limited medical preparations and only a few projects in pharmaceutical firms. There is no licensed treatment for human use against NiV until now, and the management is limited to supportive care and symptomatic treatment. In severe cases with neurologic and respiratory complications, intensive care is needed. This article reviews the published literature and highlights the latest updates about this emerging pathogen and the methods to avoid the spread of this disease during this critical period.

A Review of the Rational and Current Evidence on Colchicine for COVID-19.

The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of individuals worldwide. Despite extensive research efforts, few therapeutic options currently offer direct clinical benefits for COVID-19 patients. Despite the advances in our understanding of COVID-19, the mortality rates remain significantly high owing to the high viral transmission rates in several countries and the rise of various mutations in the SARS-CoV-2. One currently available and widely used drug that combines both anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions is colchicine, which has been proposed as a possible treatment option for COVID-19. Colchicine still did not get much attention from the medical and scientific communities despite its antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action and positive preliminary data from early trials. This literature review article provides the scientific rationale for repurposing colchicine as a potential therapy for COVID-19. Further, we summarize colchicine's mechanisms of action and possible roles in COVID-19 patients. Finally, we supplement this review with a summary of the doses, side effects, and early efficacy data from clinical trials to date. Despite the promising early findings from multiple observational and clinical trials about the potential of colchicine in COVID-19, the data from the RECOVERY trial, the largest COVID-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the world, showed no evidence of clinical benefits in mortality, hospital stays, or disease progression (n = 11340 patients). However, multiple other smaller clinical trials showed significant clinical benefits. We conclude that while current evidence does not support the use of colchicine for treating COVID-19, the present body of evidence is heterogeneous and inconclusive. The drug cannot be used in clinical practice or abandoned from clinical research without additional large RCTs providing more robust evidence. At present, the drug should not be used except for investigational purposes.

Should the direct aspiration first pass technique be advocated over the stent-retriever technique for acute ischemic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 7692 patients.

BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis aimed to synthesize evidence from all published studies with head-to-head data on the outcomes of a direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) and the stent-retriever (SR) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2021 for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. Eligible studies were identified, and all relevant outcomes were pooled in the meta-analysis random-effects model of DerSimonian-Laird. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 7868 patients. Compared with the SR, the ADAPT provides slightly higher rates of successful recanalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI [1.02 to 1.10]) and complete recanalization (RR 1.20, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.43]) but with more need for rescue therapy (RR 1.81, 95% CI [1.29 to 2.54]). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of mortality at discharge, mortality at 90 days, change in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, the favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale (mRS) of 0-2), time to the groin puncture, or frequency of complications as intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), embolus in a new territory (ENT), hemorrhagic infarction, parenchymal hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or procedural complications (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports the use of the ADAPT technique to achieve successful and complete recanalization while considering the higher need for rescue therapy in some patients.