Highlights COVID-19 pandemic has caused psychological distress both in HCW as well as NHCW. Though reasons for distress in both groups are different both suffer in equal measures. The incidence of insomnia is higher in HCW then NHCW.

The SARS-CoV-2, a novel virus has shown an association with central nervous system (CNS) symptoms. Initial retrospective studies emerging from China and France, as well as case reports from different parts of the world revealed a spectrum of neurological symptoms ranging from a simple headache to more serious encephalitis and dysexecutive syndromes. Authors have tried to explain this neurotropism of the virus by comparing invasion mechanisms with prior epidemic coronavirus like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Concrete evidence on those viruses has been limited. This review attempts to discuss various pathophysiological mechanisms as it relates to neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2. We will also discuss the neurological manifestations seen in various retrospective studies, systemic reviews, and case reports.

Importance/Background: With a scarcity of high-grade evidence for COVID-19 treatment, researchers and health care providers across the world have resorted to classical and historical interventions. Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CPT) is one such therapeutic option.Methods: A systematized search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and 18th January 2021 focusing on convalescent plasma efficacy and safety in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality benefit in patients treated with convalescent plasma compared to standard therapy/placebo. The secondary outcome was pooled mortality rate and the adverse event rate in convalescent plasma-treated patients.Results: A total of 27,706 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and a total of 3,262 (2,127 in convalescent plasma-treated patients and 1,135 in the non-convalescent plasma/control group) patients died. The quantitative synthesis in 23 studies showed that the odds of mortality in patients who received plasma therapy were significantly lower than those in patients who did not receive plasma therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.80, p < 0.0001, I2 = 15%). The mortality benefit remains the same even for 14 trials/prospective studies (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.81, p = 0.001, I2 = 22%) as well as for nine case series/retrospective observational studies (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65–0.94, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%). However, in a subgroup analysis for 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality between the CPT group compared to the non-CPT group (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53–1.08, p = 0.13, I2 = 7%). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis of 10 RCTs, excluding the study with the highest statistical weight, displayed a lower mortality rate compared to that of non-CPT COVID-19 patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42–0.97, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). The observed pooled mortality rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.7–16.9%), and the pooled adverse event rate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.2–11.6), with significant heterogeneity.Conclusions and Relevance: Our systemic review and meta-analysis suggests that CPT could be an effective therapeutic option with promising evidence on the safety and reduced mortality in concomitant treatment for COVID-19 along with antiviral/antimicrobial drugs, steroids, and other supportive care. Future exploratory studies could benefit from more standardized reporting, especially in terms of the timing of interventions and clinically relevant outcomes, like days until discharge from the hospital and improvement of clinical symptoms.

Purpose: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess association of mortality in COVID-19 patients on Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs). A secondary objective is to assess associations with higher severity of the disease in COVID-19 patients.Materials and Methods: We searched multiple COVID-19 databases (WHO, CDC, LIT-COVID) for longitudinal studies globally reporting mortality and severity published before January 18th, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using 53 studies for mortality outcome and 43 for the severity outcome. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios were generated to describe overall effect size using random effect models. To account for between study results variations, multivariate meta-regression was performed with preselected covariates using maximum likelihood method for both the mortality and severity models.Result: Our findings showed that the use of ACEIs/ARBs did not significantly influence either mortality (OR = 1.16 95% CI 0.94–1.44, p = 0.15, I2 = 93.2%) or severity (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.94–1.48, p = 0.15, I2 = 91.1%) in comparison to not being on ACEIs/ARBs in COVID-19 positive patients. Multivariate meta-regression for the mortality model demonstrated that 36% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, gender, and proportion of heart diseases in the study samples. Multivariate meta-regression for the severity model demonstrated that 8% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, proportion of diabetes, heart disease and study country in the study samples.Conclusion: We found no association of mortality or severity in COVID-19 patients taking ACEIs/ARBs.

Introduction: Our goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods: We searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. Results: A total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance. Conclusion: Mechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.