WHO has declared the outbreak of COVID-19 as a public health emergency of international concern. The evergrowing new cases have called for an urgent emergency for specific anti-COVID-19 drugs. Three structural proteins (Membrane, Envelope and Nucleocapsid protein) play an essential role in the assembly and formation of the infectious virion particles. Thus, the present study was designed to identify potential drug candidates from the unique collection of 548 anti-viral compounds (natural and synthetic anti-viral), which target SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins. High-end molecular docking analysis was performed to characterize the binding affinity of the selected drugs-the ligand, with the SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins, while high-level Simulation studies analyzed the stability of drug-protein interactions. The present study identified rutin, a bioflavonoid and the antibiotic, doxycycline, as the most potent inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein. Caffeic acid and ferulic acid were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 membrane protein while the anti-viral agent's simeprevir and grazoprevir showed a high binding affinity for nucleocapsid protein. All these compounds not only showed excellent pharmacokinetic properties, absorption, metabolism, minimal toxicity and bioavailability but were also remain stabilized at the active site of proteins during the MD simulation. Thus, the identified lead compounds may act as potential molecules for the development of effective drugs against SARS-CoV-2 by inhibiting the envelope formation, virion assembly and viral pathogenesis.

The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 have had a profound global and individual burden, with 1,610,909 confirmed cases and 99,690 confirmed deaths across 213 countries, areas, and territories at the time of writing (1).The highly transmissible nature of the novel coronavirus, its potential for asymptomatic transmission, and the lack of a curative treatment, has necessitated the enforcement of stringent social distancing and quarantine measures in order to limit the rate of infection-thereby reducing morbidity and mortality whilst also reducing the strain on rapidly saturating healthcare systems (2).Recent literature has identified that medical professionals account for COVID-19 patients due to their increased and repeated exposure to the virus (3). This unhappy truth, combined with a lack of testing and personal protective equipment for key workers, has, in some areas, seen a diminishment of the workforce and a reduction of our ability to combat the disease on both a local and international level (4).Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are defined by the United Kingdom's National Health Service as 'a group of professionals from one or more clinical disciplines who together make decisions regarding recommended treatment of individual patients' (5). They have become the clinical mainstay and gold-standard for the care of complex patients, in particular those with oncological malignancies. As such, their efficacy and cost-effectiveness is well documented in the literature (6)(7)(8).In this light, as MDTs in their current format necessitate face-to-face contact between multiple clinical teams, they have the potential to act as potent accelerators of viral transmission. This article evaluates the efficacy of virtual MDTs in the light of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic as a means of reviewing patient care at a physical distance, thereby maintaining the safety of clinicians by minimizing the risk of infection.We conducted a survey of 50 practicing physicians who have been using virtual MDTs since mid-March of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (1 month at the time of writing). This evaluated their thoughts on whether or not virtual MDTs are a safe alternative to in-person MDTs and on how the shift to a virtual space may have affected the standard of patient care. This was achieved through comparison of opinions of virtual MDTs to in-person MDTs across eleven core criteria: accessibility; clinical decision process and consensus; clinical governance; communication; continuity

The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound global and personal implications, with 5,701,337 confirmed cases and 357,688 confirmed deaths across 213 countries, areas, and territories at the time of writing (1). A concerted international response to the outbreak has focused on social distancing and quarantine measures through the closure of schools, workplaces, and community centers, in addition to household isolation, as a means of limiting humanto-human transmission and disease progression, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare system. The novelty of the virus accompanied by its asymptomatic transmission and lack of a current treatment or vaccine highlights the importance of self-isolation to reduce global infection rates (2-4). Such techniques for the control of communicable diseases are not novel and have been successfully employed in previous outbreaks, notably the 1918 H1N1 pandemic and the 2003 SARS pandemic (5-8). Their efficacy has not only been shown in clinical studies but also in simulations and pandemic models (9,10). A modelling study conducted by Prem et al. investigated the efficacy of social distancing on the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and determined a projective reduction in median infection rates of 24% by the end of 2020 following a staggered return to work commencing at the beginning of April 2020 (11). Despite the demonstrated efficacy of social distancing measures, their use imposes significant economic costs and psychosocial challenges (8,12). Of significant concern is the disruption to education and training, with The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization estimating that 87.6% of enrolled learners have been affected by the pandemic (13). Many institutions, including our own, are turning to online teaching and educational platforms, many of which rely on synchronous videoconferencing (14). Due to the nature of medicine and the need to maintain the standard of patient care, maintaining the integrity and continuity of medical teaching is paramount when possible (15). We posit that videoconferencing tools are part of the solution towards this goal through their provision of educational content to students globally. Videoconferencing is defined as "a conference in which participants in different locations are able to communicate with each other with both sound and vision" (16). This broader term encapsulates both meetings and web-based seminars (also known as webinars).

No abstract

SUMMARY Over a period of 22 years, 4844 pleural and peritoneal fluids from 3279 patients were examined cytologically. Megakaryocytes were found in the fluids from five patients. The clinical diagnoses in the five patients were agnogenic myeloid metaplasia, chronic myeloid leukaemia, and lymphocytic lymphoma. All of these patients had persistent serous effusions. Megakaryocytes in serous fluids occurred in three forms: (1) a large type with abundant cytoplasm and multilobed nuclei, (2) a smaller type with a high nucleocytoplasmic ratio and unlobed nuclei, and (3)

Under a multi-centre study conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research, 1,511 samples of parboiled rice were collected from rural and urban areas of 11 states representing different geographical regions of India. These samples were analysed for contamination with aflatoxin B(1.) The presence of aflatoxin B(1) at levels=5 microg g(-1) was found in 38.5% of the total number of samples of the parboiled rice. About 17% of the total samples showed the presence of aflatoxin B(1) above the Indian regulatory limit of 30 microg kg(-1). No statistically significant difference in percentage of samples contaminated with >30 microg kg(-1) was observed between pooled rural (19.4%) and urban (14.5%) data. A median value of 15 microg kg(-1) of aflatoxin B(1) was observed in samples from Assam, Bihar and Tripura. In all other states surveyed the median value was <5 microg?kg(-1).

In a multicenter study conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research, 1,646 samples of wheat grain collected from rural and urban areas of 10 states representing different geographical regions of India were analyzed for aflatoxin B1 (AFB1). AFB1 concentrations of > or = 5 microg kg(-1) were recorded in 40.3% of the samples, and concentrations above the Indian permissible regulatory limit of 30 microg kg(-1) were found in 16% of the samples. The proportion of samples with AFB1 concentrations above the Indian regulatory limit ranged from 1.7 to 55.8% in different states, with the minimum in Haryana and the maximum in Orissa. The variation in wheat contamination among states seems to be mainly the result of unsatisfactory storage conditions. Median AFB1 concentrations of 11, 18, and 32 microg kg(-1) were observed in samples from Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and Orissa, respectively; concentrations in other states were <5 microg kg(-1). The maximum AFB1 concentration of 606 microg kg(-1) was observed in a sample from the state of Uttar Pradesh. The calculated probable daily intakes of AFB1 through consumption of contaminated wheat for the population in some states were much higher than the suggested provisional maximum tolerable daily intake. Human health hazards associated with such AFB1 exposure over time cannot be ruled out.

No abstract