Conflicting evidence regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection do exist. We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study including 377 consecutive patients admitted for pneumonia related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Of these, 297 were in combination treatment, 17 were on HCQ alone, and 63 did not receive either of these 2 drugs because of contraindications. The primary end point was in-hospital death. Mean age was 71.8 ± 13.4 years and 34.2% were women. We recorded 146 deaths: 35 in no treatment, 7 in HCQ treatment group, and 102 in HCQ + azithromycin treatment group (log rank test for Kaplan-Meier curve P < 0.001). At multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.057, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.035-1.079, P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation/continuous positive airway pressure (HR 2.726, 95% CI 1.823-4.074, P < 0.001), and C reactive protein above the median (HR 2.191, 95% CI 1.479-3.246, P < 0.001) were directly associated with death, whereas use of HCQ + azithromycin (vs. no treatment; HR 0.265, 95% CI 0.171-0.412, P < 0.001) was inversely associated. In this study, we found a reduced in-hospital mortality in patients treated with a combination of HCQ and azithromycin after adjustment for comorbidities. A large randomized trial is necessary to confirm these findings.

Today neurological diseases such as stroke represent one of the leading cause of long-term disability. Many research efforts have been focused on designing new and effective rehabilitation strategies. In particular, robotic treatment for upper limb stroke rehabilitation has received significant attention due to its ability to provide high-intensity and repetitive movement therapy with less effort than traditional methods. In addition, the development of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has also demonstrated the capability of modulating brain excitability thus increasing motor performance. The combination of these two methods is expected to enhance functional and motor recovery after stroke; to this purpose, the current trends in this research field are presented and discussed through an in-depth analysis of the state-of-the-art. The heterogeneity and the restricted number of collected studies make difficult to perform a systematic review. However, the literature analysis of the published data seems to demonstrate that the association of tDCS with robotic training has the same clinical gain derived from robotic therapy alone. Future studies should investigate combined approach tailored to the individual patient's characteristics, critically evaluating the brain areas to be targeted and the induced functional changes.

Previous studies suggested that both robot-assisted rehabilitation and non-invasive brain stimulation can produce a slight improvement in severe chronic stroke patients. It is still unknown whether their combination can produce synergistic and more consistent improvements. Safety and efficacy of this combination has been assessed within a proof-of-principle, double-blinded, semi-randomized, sham-controlled trial. Inhibitory continuous Theta Burst Stimulation (cTBS) was delivered on the affected hemisphere, in order to improve the response to the following robot-assisted therapy via a homeostatic increase of learning capacity. Twenty severe upper limb-impaired chronic stroke patients were randomized to robot-assisted therapy associated with real or sham cTBS, delivered for 10 working days. Eight real and nine sham patients completed the study. Change in Fugl-Meyer was chosen as primary outcome, while changes in several quantitative indicators of motor performance extracted by the robot as secondary outcomes. The treatment was well-tolerated by the patients and there were no adverse events. All patients achieved a small, but significant, Fugl-Meyer improvement (about 5%). The difference between the real and the sham cTBS groups was not significant. Among several secondary end points, only the Success Rate (percentage of targets reached by the patient) improved more in the real than in the sham cTBS group. This study shows that a short intensive robot-assisted rehabilitation produces a slight improvement in severe upper-limb impaired, even years after the stroke. The association with homeostatic metaplasticity-promoting non-invasive brain stimulation does not augment the clinical gain in patients with severe stroke.

Background: The neurophysiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are typically described with respect to changes in cortical excitability, defined by using transcranial magnetic stimulation pulses to determine changes in motor evoked potentials. However, how individual cortical neurons change firing patterns under the influence of tDCS is largely unknown. While the relatively weak currents produced in the brain by tDCS may not be adequate to directly depolarize neuronal membranes, ongoing neuronal activity, combined with subthreshold changes in membrane polarization might be sufficient to alter the threshold for neural firing. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of tDCS on neurophysiological activity in motor cortex of freely moving, healthy rats. Methods: In nine healthy, ambulatory rats, each studied under six different stimulation conditions varying in current intensity (maximum current density ¼ 39.8 A/m 2 at 0.4 mA) and polarity (anodal or cathodal), neural activity was analyzed in response to 20 min of tDCS applied through bone screws insulated from the overlying scalp. Results: After analysis of 480 multi-unit channels that satisfied a rigid set of neurophysiological criteria, we found no systematic effect of tDCS stimulation condition on firing rate or firing pattern. Restricting the analysis to the most responsive units, subtle, but statistically significant changes occurred only in the highest intensity anodal condition. Conclusions: These results confirm that at current densities typically used in human or animal tDCS studies, observed effects of tDCS are likely to occur via mechanisms other than direct neuronal depolarization.

No abstract