Approximately one-third of infected pregnant women died from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemics of the past two decades. It is logical to predict that pregnant women infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) might be at higher risk for severe illness, morbidity, or mortality compared with non-pregnant women. However, a review of the literature indicates that pregnant women are not more likely to be seriously ill than other healthy non-pregnant women if they develop coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This observation begs the question: "Why does pregnancy not increase the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor does it worsen the clinical course of COVID-19 compared with nonpregnant individuals?" Herein, we try to explain our observations when considering whether the immunologic changes of pregnancy and other physiologic adaptations of pregnancy affect the virulence and course of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Many observations denote that we should deal with COVID-19 as a systemic disease. Methods: In the following report, we discuss briefly observations denoting “the systemic” nature of COVID-19. Results: COVID-19 virology, the roles of ACE-2 receptor in COVID-19 pathogenesis, immunological aspects of the disease, endothelial dysfunction and coagulopathy, and autopsy studies denote the systemic nature of COVID-19. Conclusion: Thinking in COVID-19 as a systemic disease, will implement our ways of understanding and hence dealing with that disease. The most important public health solution is an effective vaccine for the broad population remaining at risk. As patients with COVID-19 present a broad spectrum of clinical presentation and distinct phenotypes, different strategies of management should be customized to the specific individual phenotypes. Further researches are highly needed to clarify the concept of “Is COVID-19 a systemic disease?”. Until that time, we think that clinicians should deal with COVID19 as a systemic disease.

Background The distress thermometer (DT) is an effective tool for identifying distress among cancer patients worldwide. However, DT has not been studied in Egyptian patients. We aimed to study the prevalence of distress among Egyptian patients with different types of cancers using DT. Methods A total of 550 patients with newly diagnosed hematological and solid cancers who were followed up at 3 Oncology Centers in Egypt were enrolled. They completed a sociodemographic and clinical status questionnaire, the DT and the Problem List (PL) scale. Results At a DT cut-off score of ≥4, 46% of patients had significant distress, which was related to the tumor site and stage. The most frequent problems reported were treatment decision (64.4%), worry (47%), and fears (44.5%). In univariate logistic regression analysis, participants who had significant distress described 23 out of 36 problems in the practical, family, emotional, and physical areas. After adjustment to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, multivariable analysis confirmed that insurance, depression, fear, sadness, worry, loss of interest in usual activity, and sleep were independent factors associated with significant distress in cancer patients. Conclusions Almost half of Egyptian patients newly diagnosed with cancer reported significant distress. Those who had significant distress described extra problems in the practical, family, emotional, and physical areas. We recommend the routine use of DT for screening Egyptian patients with cancer, as well as the involvement of the psycho-oncology and social services, at the time of their initial diagnosis.

No abstract

Background Procalcitonin (PCT) is a potential biomarker for sepsis and acts as a guide to antibiotic administration. Previous studies showed that lung cancer (LC) may increase serum PCT levels. However, no studies addressed serum PCT in patients with combined LC and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF): LC-IPF. We aimed to evaluate the significance of serum PCT in patients with LC-IPF. Methods A total of 137 patients with IPF who had complete follow-up data were reviewed. They were categorized into two groups: 30 patients with LC and IPF (LC-IPF) and 82 patients with IPF only (IPF). PCT assays in the two groups were done using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. Results Median serum PCT (IQR) was significantly higher in patients with LC-IPF in comparison to those with IPF only (0.655± 3.60 vs 0.07 ± 0.11 ng/ml, p=0.016), respectively. LC-IPF patients with neuroendocrine (NE) component, stage IV disease, and with >2 metastatic sites had a significantly higher PCT in comparison to those with non-NE, stages I-III, and <2 metastatic sites, respectively. The presence of the NE component was the only independent risk factor predictive for PCT positivity in patients with LC-IPF; OR1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042-2.145; p = 0.042). Conclusion Patients with LC-IPF have higher serum PCT levels than those with IPF alone. These levels are related to the presence of NE component, advanced cancer stage, and the presence of multiple metastases. The presence of the NE component is the only independent risk factor predictive for PCT positivity in patients with LC-IPF. Further studies are warranted.