Background There is an increased attention to stroke following SARS-CoV-2. The goal of this study was to better depict the short-term risk of stroke and its associated factors among SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients. Methods This multicentre, multinational observational study includes hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients from North and South America (United States, Canada, and Brazil), Europe (Greece, Italy, Finland, and Turkey), Asia (Lebanon, Iran, and India), and Oceania (New Zealand). The outcome was the risk of subsequent stroke. Centres were included by non-probability sampling. The counts and clinical characteristics including laboratory findings and imaging of the patients with and without a subsequent stroke were recorded according to a predefined protocol. Quality, risk of bias, and heterogeneity assessments were conducted according to ROBINS-E and Cochrane Q-test. The risk of subsequent stroke was estimated through meta-analyses with random effect models. Bivariate logistic regression was used to determine the parameters with predictive outcome value. The study was reported according to the STROBE, MOOSE, and EQUATOR guidelines. Findings We received data from 26,175 hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients from 99 tertiary centres in 65 regions of 11 countries until May 1st, 2020. A total of 17,799 patients were included in meta-analyses. Among them, 156(0.9%) patients had a stroke—123(79%) ischaemic stroke, 27(17%) intracerebral/subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 6(4%) cerebral sinus thrombosis. Subsequent stroke risks calculated with meta-analyses, under low to moderate heterogeneity, were 0.5% among all centres in all countries, and 0.7% among countries with higher health expenditures. The need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.9, 95% CI:1.1–3.5, p = 0.03) and the presence of ischaemic heart disease (OR: 2.5, 95% CI:1.4–4.7, p = 0.006) were predictive of stroke. Interpretation The results of this multi-national study on hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection indicated an overall stroke risk of 0.5%(pooled risk: 0.9%). The need for mechanical ventilation and the history of ischaemic heart disease are the independent predictors of stroke among SARS-CoV-2 patients. Funding None.

Background: As COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally, evidence from large randomized controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are being undertaken all over the world. Objectives: We summarized all registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved studies. Data sources: Clinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteria: Registered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventions: No restrictions in terms of participants' age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. Methods: The registries were searched using the term 'coronavirus' or 'COVID-19' from their inception until 26 March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarized and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing traditional Chinese medicine. Results: In total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and three studies examining both were retrieved. Finally, 214 studies were methodologically reviewed. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomized (n ¼ 150/198, 76%) and open label (n ¼ 73/198, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (interquartile range 40e200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. Conclusions: Numerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarized data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment.

No abstract

The advent of highly sensitive molecular diagnostic techniques has improved our ability to detect viral pathogens leading to severe and often fatal infections that require admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Viral infections in the ICU have pleomorphic clinical presentations including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, central or peripheral nervous system manifestations, and viral-induced shock. Besides de novo infections, certain viruses fall into latency and can be reactivated in both immunosuppressed and immunocompetent critically ill patients. Depending on the viral strain, transmission occurs either directly through contact with infectious materials and large droplets, or indirectly through suspended air particles (airborne transmission of droplet nuclei). Many viruses can efficiently spread within hospital environment leading to in-hospital outbreaks, sometimes with high rates of mortality and morbidity, thus infection control measures are of paramount importance. Despite the advances in detecting viral pathogens, limited progress has been made in antiviral treatments, contributing to unexpectedly high rates of unfavorable outcomes. Herein, we review the most updated data on epidemiology, common clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of severe community- and hospital-acquired viral infections in the ICU settings.

No abstract

Graphical abstract

No abstract

Background The accuracy of a new optical biosensor (OB) point-of-care device for the detection of severe infections is studied. Methods The OB emits different wavelengths and outputs information associated with heart rate, pulse oximetry, levels of nitric oxide and kidney function. At the first phase, recordings were done every two hours for three consecutive days after hospital admission in 142 patients at high-risk for sepsis by placing the OB on the forefinger. At the second phase, single recordings were done in 54 patients with symptoms of viral infection; 38 were diagnosed with COVID-19. Results At the first phase, the cutoff value of positive likelihood of 18 provided 100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value for the diagnosis of sepsis. These were 87.5 and 91.7% respectively at the second phase. OB diagnosed severe COVID-19 with 83.3% sensitivity and 87.5% negative predictive value. Conclusions The studied OB seems valuable for the discrimination of infection severity.