Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19. Methods: A cohort study at a New York City hospital at the peak of the early pandemic in the United States, under crisis conditions. The aim was to determine the benefit of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included changes in physiologic parameters. Fine-Gray competing risks models with stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) were used to determine the effect of prone positioning on outcomes. In addition, linear mixed effects models (LMM) were used to assess changes in physiology with prone positioning. Results: Out of 335 participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated, 62 underwent prone positioning, 199 met prone positioning criteria and served as controls and 74 were excluded. The intervention and control groups were similar at baseline. In multivariate-adjusted competing risks models with sIPTW, prone positioning was significantly associated with reduced mortality (SHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46-0.80, P < 0.005). Using LMM to evaluate the impact of positioning maneuvers on physiological parameters, the oxygenation-saturation index was significantly improved during days 1-3 ( P < 0.01) whereas oxygenation-saturation index (OSI), oxygenation-index (OI) and arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2: FiO2) were significantly improved during days 4-7 (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Prone positioning in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 is associated with reduced mortality and improved physiologic parameters. One in-hospital death could be averted for every 8 patients treated. Replicating results and scaling the intervention are important, but prone positioning may represent an additional therapeutic option in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.

Leishmaniasis, a vector-borne disease caused by obligate intramacrophage protozoa, threatens 350 million people in 98 countries around the world. There are already 12 million infected people worldwide and two million new cases occur annually. Leishmaniasis has three main clinical presentations: cutaneous (CL), mucosal (ML), and visceral (VL). It is considered an opportunistic, infectious disease and the HIV-leishmaniasis correlation is well known. Antimonial compounds are used as first-line treatment drugs, but their toxicity, which can be extremely high, leads to a number of undesirable side effects and resultant failure of the patients to adhere to treatment. There is also a reported increase in Leishmania sp. resistance to these drugs. Nanotechnology has emerged as an attractive alternative because of its improved bioavailability and lower toxicity, and other characteristics that help to relieve the burden of this disease. In this review we will present some of the recent advances in the nanotechnological research regarding the treatment of leishmaniasis. The preclinical results regarding the approaches for a biomedical treatment of the disease have been encouraging, but further efforts will still be necessary for this therapy to have greater clinical applicability in humans.

Despite the development of several effective vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread, causing serious illness among the unvaccinated. Healthcare professionals are trusted sources of information about vaccination, and therefore understanding the attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals regarding the vaccines is of utmost importance. We conducted a survey-based study to understand the factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among health care professionals in NYC Health and Hospitals, at a time when the vaccine was new, and received 3759 responses. Machine learning and chi-square analyses were applied to determine the factors most predictive of vaccine hesitancy. Demographic factors, education, role at the hospital, perceptions of the pandemic itself, and location of work and residence were all found to significantly contribute to vaccine attitudes. Location of residence was examined for both borough and neighborhood, and was found to have a significant impact on vaccine receptivity. Interestingly, this borough-level data did not correspond to the number or severity of cases in the respective boroughs, indicating that local social or other influences likely have a substantial impact. Local and demographic factors should be strongly considered when preparing pro-vaccine messages or campaigns.

Background Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 5 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts. Results The analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345–0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110–1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114–3.729, p = 0.016). Conclusion Empiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.

BACKGROUND Non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) is a rare cause of persistent hypoglycemia seen in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is likely to be underdiagnosed especially in the patients with poor hepatic function and malnutrition. Herein, we report a rare case of NICTH as the initial presentation of HCC in a patient with chronic hypoglycemia due to end-stage liver cirrhosis. CASE SUMMARY A 62-year-old male with chronic fasting hypoglycemia secondary to end-stage hepatitis C-related cirrhosis, presented with altered mental status and dizziness. He was found to have severe hypoglycemia refractory to glucose supplements. Imaging studies and biopsy discovered well differentiated HCC without metastasis. Further evaluation showed low insulin, C-peptide and beta-hydroxybutyrate along with a high insulin-like growth factor-2/insulin-like growth factor ratio, consistent with the diagnosis of NICTH. As patient was not a candidate for surgical resection or chemotherapy, he was started on prednisolone with some improvements in the glucose homeostasis, but soon decompensated after a superimposed hospital acquired pneumonia. CONCLUSION NICTH can occur as the sole initial presentation of HCC and is often difficult to correct without tumor removal. Clinicians should maintain high clinical suspicion for early recognition of paraneoplastic NICTH in patients at risk for HCC, even those with chronic fasting hypoglycemia in the setting of severe hepatic failure and malnutrition.

No abstract

ObjectiveDynamics of humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens following infection suggest an initial decay of antibody followed by subsequent stabilisation. We aim to understand the longitudinal humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein and spike (S) protein and to evaluate their correlation to clinical symptoms among healthcare workers (HCWs).DesignA prospective longitudinal study.SettingThis study was conducted in a New York City public hospital in the South Bronx, New York.ParticipantsHCWs participated in phase 1 (N=500) and were followed up 4 months later in phase 2 (N=178) of the study. They underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serology testing for N and S protein antibodies, in addition to completion of an online survey in both phases. Analysis was performed on the 178 participants who participated in both phases of the study.Primary outcome measureEvaluate longitudinal humoral responses to viral N (qualitative serology testing) and S protein (quantitative Mount Sinai Health System ELISA to detect receptor-binding domain and full-length S reactive antibodies) by measuring rate of decay.ResultsAnti-N antibody positivity was 27% and anti-S positivity was 28% in phase 1. In phase 1, anti-S titres were higher in symptomatic (6754 (5177–8812)) than in asymptomatic positive subjects (5803 (2825–11 920)). Marginally higher titres (2382 (1494–3797)) were seen in asymptomatic compared with the symptomatic positive subgroup (2198 (1753–2755)) in phase 2. A positive correlation was noted between age (R=0.269, p<0.01), number (R=0.310, p<0.01) and duration of symptoms (R=0.434, p<0.01), and phase 1 anti-S antibody titre. A strong correlation (R=0.898, p<0.001) was observed between phase 1 titres and decay of anti-S antibody titres between the two phases. Significant correlation with rate of decay was also noted with fever (R=0.428, p<0.001), gastrointestinal symptoms (R=0.340, p<0.05), and total number (R=0.357, p<0.01) and duration of COVID-19 symptoms (R=0.469, p<0.001).ConclusionsHigher initial anti-S antibody titres were associated with larger number and longer duration of symptoms as well as a faster decay between the two time points.

Background: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 15 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts. Results: The analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Empiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.