Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

Background Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) is one of the most common gynecological conditions among young females, which has a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life and productivity. Despite its high prevalence, the evidence is limited regarding the management-seeking practices and its perceived effectiveness among females with PD. Methods This is a cross-sectional study conducted among 550 female students in six universities across Lebanon. The prevalence of PD, associated risk factors, and management-seeking practices were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. Results The prevalence of PD was 80.9%. Most of the females with PD described their menstrual pain as moderate (56%) to severe (34.6%), which significantly affected their daily activities and studying ability (P < 0.001). The major risk factors associated with PD included heavy menstrual flow (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 10.28), family history of PD (AOR = 2.52), history of weight loss attempt (AOR = 2.05), and medical specialization (AOR = 1.663). Only 36.9% of females with PD sought formal medical advice. Most dysmenorrheic females (76.4%) received medications for the management of PD, and remarkably none of them took hormonal contraceptives. Drugs commonly used for PD were mefenamic acid (26.2%), ibuprofen (25%), and paracetamol (11.5%), which were administered when the pain started (58.2%). All medications were significantly effective in reducing the pain score (P = 0.001), and most NSAIDs were more potent than paracetamol in managing PD (P = 0.001). However, no significant difference in adverse effects among medications was revealed. Moreover, no superiority of any individual NSAID for pain relief was established. Nevertheless, mefenamic acid was associated with the lowest risk of abdominal pain (OR: 0.03, P = 0.005) and the highest risk of flank pain (OR = 12, P = 0.02). Conclusions Suboptimal management of PD is practiced among university students in Lebanon. Therefore, health care providers should educate dysmenorrheic females to optimize the self-management support of PD. Furthermore, future research is required to investigate females’ misconceptions about hormonal contraceptives in the management of PD, aiming to raise awareness and correct misconceptions.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) is a common, disregarded, underdiagnosed, and inadequately treated complaint of both young and adult females. It is characterized by painful cramps in the lower abdomen, which start shortly before or at the onset of menses and which could last for 3 days. In particular, PD negatively impacts the quality of life (QOL) of young females and is the main reason behind their absenteeism from school or work. It is suggested that increased intrauterine secretion of prostaglandins F2α and E2 are responsible for the pelvic pain associated with this disorder. Its associated symptoms are physical and/or psychological. Its physical symptoms include headache, lethargy, sleep disturbances, tender breasts, various body pains, disturbed appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation or diarrhea, and increased urination, whereas its psychological symptoms include mood disturbances, such as anxiety, depression, and irritability. While its diagnosis is based on patients’ history, symptoms, and physical examination, its treatment aims to improve the QOL through the administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hormonal contraceptives, and/or the use of non-pharmacological aids (e.g., topical heat application and exercise). Patients must be monitored to measure their response to treatment, assess their adherence, observe potential side effects, and perform further investigations, if needed.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has overburdened the healthcare facilities, which demanded the use of alternative and effective methods for delivering healthcare services. The use of telehealth has become a necessity to provide initial health services. Objective To identify the pharmaceutical care provided by community pharmacists to suspected high-risk COVID-19 patients using telehealth. Methods A simulated patient (SP) phoned 100 randomly-selected community pharmacies throughout Lebanon using a standard scenario of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus with typical symptoms of COVID-19. Pharmacists’ responses were compared with pre-defined ideal recommendations using a special form. Results The mean of the retrieved medical information score obtained by the pharmacists was 2.48 ± 2.79 (out of 21), with 34 % of the participants not retrieving any relevant medical data from the SP. The relative patient information, the exposure to COVID-19, and the possible COVID-19 symptoms were not retrieved by 61 %, 70 %, and 41 % of the pharmacists, respectively. Two percent of the pharmacists assured that the SP’s symptoms were related to common cold, while 5 % confirmed that the SP is infected with COVID-19. Notably, 35 % of the pharmacists did not offer any recommendation. Among them, 14 % claimed that they were too busy to respond. Only 39 % of the pharmacists provided an appropriate recommendation by referring the SP to her physician to seek medical attention within 24 h since the SP is a high-risk patient, and 41 % recommended doing a PCR test. Antipyretics, antibiotics, and dietary supplements were recommended by 27 %, 7 %, and 16 % of the pharmacists, respectively. Less than 16 % of the pharmacists recommended using protective measures against COVID-19. In addition, the overall communication skills of the pharmacists were generally below expectations. Conclusions This study is the first to assess the quality of pharmaceutical care provided by community pharmacists in the Middle East via Telehealth. An unsatisfactory level of preparedness through means of telehealth technology was evident. This resulted in the quality of pharmaceutical-care services provided to high-risk patients via telehealth to be below expectations. Therefore, health authorities should encourage community pharmacists to effectively adopt telehealth, by providing appropriate training, as well as recognizing their extra efforts with financial compensations, aiming to optimize patients’ health outcomes.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the new coronavirus responsible for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), characterized by acute respiratory distress syndrome and atypical pneumonia. In non-pregnant women, studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 causes cardiac injury, which can result in myocardial inflammation and damage. Despite many studies investigating the extent of cardiac compromise in severely ill COVID-19 patients, little is known regarding its impact on pregnant women. Objective To illustrate the clinical, laboratory, radiological findings, and outcomes of COVID-19 pregnant patients who developed myocardial injury with ventricular dysfunction. Study Design We retrospectively reviewed the paper records of fifteen pregnant women with COVID-19, who developed myocardial injury on a single tertiary care hospital in the Dominican Republic. Patient's baseline characteristics, clinical picture, laboratory, and radiological findings were presented, and maternal and fetal outcomes were analyzed. Results Of 154 pregnant patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at our hospital during the study period, 15 (9.7%), developed myocardial injury. These patients' mean age and gestational age were 29.87 ± 5.83 and 32.31 ± 3.68, respectively. 66.7% of patients presented with shortness of breath and 16.3% with palpitations. All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 86.6% needed intubation. Patients developed myocardial injury confirmed with highly elevated troponin (34.6 [14.4-55.5 ng/ml]), and pro-BNP concentrations (209 [184-246 pg/ml]). Additionally, all patients developed left ventricular dysfunction demonstrated by an echocardiogram with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 37.67 ± 6.4 %. Two patients that presented with palpitations passed away a few days after admission. Conclusion Our study showed COVID-19 induced myocardial injury and left ventricular dysfunction in pregnant women with a 13.3% mortality rate which was attributed to malignant arrhythmias.

To determine the prevalence, level of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk perception attitude and preventive behavior implemented by the Latino population in the United States of America (USA). Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted between July 25 and August 25, 2020, and included asymptomatic Latino participants (n=410) with no current/previous COVID-19 within a religious community in Maryland. Participants answered a questionnaire consisting of three components: patient demographics/socioeconomic status, COVID-19 risk perception, and precautionary behavior. Additionally, a focused history taking and physical examination were performed, and nasal swabs for COVID-19 testing were obtained. Results Around 80% of our study population was 35 years and older, considerably healthy, with only about a third reporting history of chronic disease (~80%); most were females (~66%). Of our participants, 90% lived under poverty; only ~6% had made it to college. When asked about the likelihood of acquiring COVID-19, 97.3% stated they have a low risk of getting infected. However, as we asked about the risk of individuals living in their neighborhood, state, and country, the rates changed to moderate to high (78.4%, 86.3%, and 86.6%, respectively). When asked about preventive behavior, 71.2% stated they never wear masks and 85.4% mentioned they never keep social distance. Additionally, 76 (18.5%) tested positive for COVID-19, whereas 64 (84.2%) developed symptoms at follow-up, 57 (75%) were hospitalized, and 4 (5.2%) died. Conclusions Our study identified inadequate COVID-19 threat perception and lack of engagement in preventive behavior among a group of Latinos living in the USA. We believe that Latino communities across the USA are at markedly high risk of acquiring, spreading, and dying of COVID-19.

No abstract