Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. MethodsWe did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung's disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. FindingsWe included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung's disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58•0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36-39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2•8 kg (2•3-3•3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39•8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20•4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5•6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0•0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90•0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31•9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1•4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0•0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2•78 [95% CI 1•88-4•11], p<0•0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2•11 [1•59-2•79], p<0•0001), sepsis at presentation (1•20 [1•04-1•40], p=0•016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4-5 vs ASA 1-2, 1•82 [1•40-2•35], p<0•0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1-2, 1•58, [1•30-1•92], p<0•0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1•39 [1•02-1•90], p=0•035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1•96, [1•4...

In December 2019, the novel coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) that began in China had infected so far more than 109,217,366 million individuals worldwide and accounted for more than 2,413,912 fatalities. With the dawn of this novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), there was a requirement to select potential therapies that might effectively kill the virus, accelerate the recovery, or decrease the case fatality rate. Besides the currently available antiviral medications for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) regimen with or without azithromycin has been repurposed in China and was recommended by the National Health Commission, China in mid-February 2020. By this time, the selection of this regimen was based on its efficacy against the previous SARS-CoV-1 virus and its potential to inhibit viral replication of the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. There was a shortage of robust clinical proof about the effectiveness of this regimen against the novel SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, extensive research effort has been made by several researchers worldwide to investigate whether this regimen is safe and effective for the management of COVID-19. In this review, we provided a comprehensive overview of the CQ/HCQ regimen, summarizing data from in vitro studies and clinical trials for the protection against or the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the initial promising results from the in vitro studies and the widespread use of CQ/HCQ in clinical settings during the 1st wave of COVID-19, current data from well-designed randomized controlled trials showed no evidence of benefit from CQ/HCQ supplementation for the treatment or prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Particularly, the two largest randomized controlled trials to date (RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY trials), both confirmed that CQ/HCQ regimen does not provide any clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in COVID-19 patients outside the context of clinical trials.

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.

To date, there is no final FDA-approved treatment for COVID-19. There are thousands of studies published on the available treatments for COVID-19 virus in the past year. Therefore, it is crucial to synthesize and summarize the evidence from published studies on the safety and efficacy of experimental treatments of COVID-19. We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, GHL, OpenGrey, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through April 2020. We obtained 2699 studies from the initial literature search. Of them, we included 28 eligible studies that met our eligibility criteria. The sample size of the included studies is 2079 individuals. We extracted and pooled the available data and conducted a quality assessment for the eligible studies. From the 28 studies, only 13 studies provide strong evidence. Our results showed that Favipiravir and Hydroxycholoroquine shorten viral clearance and clinical recovery time and promote pneumonia absorption. On the other hand, Lopinavir-ritonavir either alone or combined with arbidol or interferons has no significant difference superior to the standard care. Corticosteroids, Convalescent plasma transfusion, and anticoagulant therapies provide a better prognosis. Remedsivir, Tocilizumab, Immunoglobulin, Mesenchymal stem cell transplantation showed effective treatment results, but further confirmatory studies are needed. In conclusion, Favipiravir and Remedsivir might be promising drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: We searched Medline (via PubMed), EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant published studies. We selected studies assessing the accuracy of DECT in the detection of PE. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seven studies were included in our systematic review. Of the 182 patients included, 108 patients had PEs. The pooled analysis showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.4%-94.1%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-98.5%), respectively. The pooled PLR was 8.186 (95% CI: 3.726-17.986), while the pooled NLR was 0.159 (95% CI: 0.093-0.270). Cochran-Q was 0.8712, and AUC was 0.935 in the sROC curve. Conclusion: Dual-energy computed tomography shows high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the detection of acute PE. The high PLR highlights the high clinical importance of DECT as a prevalence-independent, rule-in test. Studies with a larger sample size with standardized reference tests are still needed to increase the statistical power of the study and support these findings.

No abstract

No abstract

: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than seven million individuals in 213 countries worldwide with a basic reproduction number ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 and an estimated case fatality rate ranging from 2% to 7%. A substantial proportion of COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic; however, symptomatic cases might present with fever, cough, and dyspnoea or severe symptoms up to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Currently, RNA RT-PCR is the screening tool, while bilateral chest CT is the confirmatory clinical diagnostic test. Several drugs have been repurposed to treat COVID-19, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir combination, remdesivir, favipiravir, tocilizumab, and EIDD-1931. Recently, Remdesivir gained FDA emergency approval based on promising early findings from the interim analysis of 1063 patients. The recently developed serology testing for SARSCoV-2 antibodies opened the door to evaluate the actual burden of the disease and to determine the rate of the population who have been previously infected (or developed immunity). This review article summarizes current data on the COVID-19 pandemic starting from the early outbreak, viral structure and origin, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, discharge criteria, and future research.