Medical students are the future of sustainable health systems that are severely under pressure during COVID-19. The disruption in medical education and training has adversely impacted traditional medical education and medical students and is likely to have long-term implications beyond COVID-19. In this article, we present a comprehensive analysis of the existing structural and systemic challenges applicable to medical students and teaching/training programs and the impact of COVID-19 on medical students and education. Use of technologies such as telemedicine or remote education platforms can minimize increased mental health risks to this population. An overview of challenges during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic are also discussed, and targeted recommendations to address acute and systemic issues in medical education and training are presented. During the transition from conventional in-person or classroom teaching to tele-delivery of educational programs, medical students have to navigate various social, economic and cultural factors which interfere with their personal and academic lives. This is especially relevant for those from vulnerable, underprivileged or minority backgrounds. Students from vulnerable backgrounds are influenced by environmental factors such as unemployment of themselves and family members, lack of or inequity in provision and access to educational technologies and remote delivery-platforms, and increased levels of mental health stressors due to prolonged isolation and self-quarantine measures. Technologies for remote education and training delivery as well as sustenance and increased delivery of general well-being and mental health services to medical students, especially to those at high-risk, are pivotal to our response to COVID-19 and beyond.

There is an ongoing need for accurate prognostic biomarkers in the milieu of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) receiving reperfusion therapy. Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been implicated in emergency medicine and acute stroke setting as an important biomarker in the prognosis of patients. However, there are ongoing questions around its accuracy and translation into clinical practice given suboptimal sensitivity and specificity results, as well as varying thresholds and lack of clarity around which NLR time points are most clinically indicative. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of NLR in AIS patients receiving reperfusion therapy and perspectives on areas of future research. NLR may be an important biomarker in risk stratifying patients in AIS to identify and select those who are more likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy. Appropriate clinical decision‐making tools and models are required to harness the predictive value of NLR, which could be useful in identifying and monitoring high‐risk patients to guide early treatment and achieve improved outcomes. Our understanding of the role of NLR in the immunopathogenesis of AIS is also suboptimal, which hinders the ability to translate this into clinical practice.

† The COVID19 pandemic is causing an unprecedented public health crisis impacting healthcare systems, healthcare workers and communities. The COVID-19 Pandemic Health System RESILIENCE PROGRAM (REPROGRAM) consortium is a think-tank of leading international healthcare physicians, researchers and policymakers formed to champion the safety of healthcare workers, policy development and advocacy for global pandemic preparedness and action.

Background Inflammation may mediate response to acute reperfusion therapy (RT) in acute cerebral ischaemia. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), an inflammatory biomarker, may play an important role in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) prognostication. Objective This meta-analysis sought to examine the effect of NLR on functional outcomes, mortality and adverse outcomes in AIS patients receiving RT. Methods Individual studies were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Data were extracted using a standardised data sheet and meta-analysis on association of admission (pre-RT) or delayed (post-RT) NLR with clinical/safety outcomes after RT was conducted. Results Thirty-five studies (n = 10 308) were identified for the systematic review with 27 (n = 8537) included in the meta-analyses. Lower admission NLR was associated with good functional outcomes (GFOs), defined as 3-month modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0–2 (SMD = −.46; 95% CI = −.62 to −.29; P < .0001), mRS 0–1 (SMD = −.44; 95% CI = −.66 to −.22; P < .0001) and early neurological improvement (ENI) (SMD = −.55; 95 %CI = −.84 to −.25; P < .0001). Lower delayed admission NLR was also associated with GFOs (SMD = −.80; 95%CI = −.91 to −.68; P < .0001). Higher admission NLR was significantly associated with mortality (SMD = .49; 95%CI = .12 to .85; P = .009), intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (SMD = .34; 95% CI = .09 to .59; P = .007), symptomatic ICH (sICH) (SMD = .48; 95% CI = .07 to .90; P = .022) and stroke-associated infection or pneumonia (SMD = .85; 95% CI = .50, 1.19; P < .0001). Higher delayed NLR was significantly associated with sICH (SMD = 1.40; 95% CI = .60 to 2.19; P = .001), ICH (SMD = .94; 95% CI = .41 to 1.46; P < .0001) and mortality (SMD = 1.12; 95% CI = .57 to 1.67; P < .0001). There were variations in outcomes across RT groups. Conclusion Higher admission or delayed NLR is significantly associated with worse morbidity, mortality and safety outcomes in AIS patients receiving RT.

No abstract

In the milieu of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), there are increasing reports of paediatric hyperinflammatory conditions (PHICs), including multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS‐C), paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 (PIMS‐TS) and Kawasaki disease (KD). Few analyses of PHIC prevalence in paediatric and adolescent hospitalized COVID‐19 patients exist. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta‐analysis to determine a pooled prevalence estimate of PHICs in paediatric and adolescent hospitalized patients admitted for treatment due to COVID‐19. Individual studies were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Relevant prevalence, baseline, treatment and outcome data were extracted using a standardized datasheet. The systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted as per the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Overall, 14 studies with 2202 patients admitted for treatment due to COVID‐19, among whom 780 were diagnosed with PHICs, were included. The crude estimate of prevalence was 35.42%, and the pooled estimate of prevalence was 29% (random pooled ES = 0.29; 95% CIs = 0.18–0.42; p < 0.0001; z = 7.45). A sizeable proportion of paediatric and adolescent hospitalized patients admitted for treatment due to COVID‐19 are diagnosed with a PHIC warranting a high index of clinical suspicion for PHICs. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

No abstract

Background Both inflammation and thrombotic/hemostatic mechanisms may play a role in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) pathogenesis, and a biomarker, such as the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), considering both mechanisms may be of clinical utility. Objectives This meta-analysis sought to examine the effect of PLR on functional outcomes, early neurological changes, bleeding complications, mortality, and adverse outcomes in AIS patients treated with reperfusion therapy (RT). Design Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Data Sources and Methods Individual studies were retrieved from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. References thereof were also consulted. Data were extracted using a standardised data sheet, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the association of admission (pre-RT) or delayed (post-RT) PLR with defined clinical and safety outcomes were conducted. In the case of multiple delayed PLR timepoints, the timepoint closest to 24 hours was selected. Results Eighteen studies (n=4878) were identified for the systematic review, of which 14 (n=4413) were included in the meta-analyses. PLR collected at admission was significantly negatively associated with 90-day good functional outcomes (SMD=−.32; 95% CI = −.58 to −.05; P=.020; z=−2.328), as was PLR collected at delayed timepoints (SMD=−.43; 95% CI = −.54 to −.32; P<.0001; z=−7.454). PLR at delayed timepoints was also significantly negatively associated with ENI (SMD=−.18; 95% CI = −.29 to −.08; P=.001. Conversely, the study suggested that a higher PLR at delayed timepoints may be associated with radiological bleeding and mortality. The results varied based on the type of RT administered. Conclusions A higher PLR is associated with worse outcomes after stroke in terms of morbidity, mortality, and safety outcomes after stroke.