Objective:The objectives of this study were to measure the global impact of the pandemic on the volumes for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases.Results:There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95%CI, -11.7 to - 11.3, p<0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95%CI, -13.8 to -12.7, p<0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95%CI, -13.7 to -10.3, p=0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95%CI 9.2-9.8, p<0.0001) was noted over the two later (May, June) versus the two earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions.Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to profound changes in the organization of health care systems worldwide. Aims: We sought to measure the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volumes for mechanical thrombectomy (MT), stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) hospitalizations over a 3-month period at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to May 31, 2020) compared with two control 3-month periods (immediately preceding and one year prior). Methods: Retrospective, observational, international study, across 6 continents, 40 countries, and 187 comprehensive stroke centers. The diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases at participating centers. Results: The hospitalization volumes for any stroke, ICH, and MT were 26,699, 4,002, and 5,191 in the 3 months immediately before versus 21,576, 3,540, and 4,533 during the first 3 pandemic months, representing declines of 19.2% (95%CI,-19.7 to -18.7), 11.5% (95%CI,-12.6 to -10.6), and 12.7% (95%CI,-13.6 to -11.8), respectively. The decreases were noted across centers with high, mid, and low COVID-19 hospitalization burden, and also across high, mid, and low volume stroke/MT centers. High-volume COVID-19 centers (-20.5%) had greater declines in MT volumes than mid- (-10.1%) and low-volume (-8.7%) centers (p<0.0001). There was a 1.5% stroke rate across 54,366 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.9% (784/20,250) of all stroke admissions. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of overall stroke hospitalizations, MT procedures, and ICH admission volumes. Despite geographic variations, these volume reductions were observed regardless of COVID-19 hospitalization burden and pre-pandemic stroke/MT volumes.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased volumes of stroke admissions and mechanical thrombectomy were reported. The study’s objective was to examine whether subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm coiling interventions demonstrated similar declines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study across 6 continents, 37 countries and 140 comprehensive stroke centres. Patients with the diagnosis of SAH, aneurysmal SAH, ruptured aneurysm coiling interventions and COVID-19 were identified by prospective aneurysm databases or by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes. The 3-month cumulative volume, monthly volumes for SAH hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm coiling procedures were compared for the period before (1 year and immediately before) and during the pandemic, defined as 1 March–31 May 2020. The prior 1-year control period (1 March–31 May 2019) was obtained to account for seasonal variation.FindingsThere was a significant decline in SAH hospitalisations, with 2044 admissions in the 3 months immediately before and 1585 admissions during the pandemic, representing a relative decline of 22.5% (95% CI −24.3% to −20.7%, p<0.0001). Embolisation of ruptured aneurysms declined with 1170–1035 procedures, respectively, representing an 11.5% (95%CI −13.5% to −9.8%, p=0.002) relative drop. Subgroup analysis was noted for aneurysmal SAH hospitalisation decline from 834 to 626 hospitalisations, a 24.9% relative decline (95% CI −28.0% to −22.1%, p<0.0001). A relative increase in ruptured aneurysm coiling was noted in low coiling volume hospitals of 41.1% (95% CI 32.3% to 50.6%, p=0.008) despite a decrease in SAH admissions in this tertile.InterpretationThere was a relative decrease in the volume of SAH hospitalisations, aneurysmal SAH hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm embolisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings in SAH are consistent with a decrease in other emergencies, such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

Neither denosumab nor bisphosphonates could suppress inflammation or RA disease activity, but denosumab significantly suppressed a marker of bone metabolism in Japanese RA patients never previously treated for osteoporosis.

It has recently been reported that bisphosphonates are the most common treatment for osteoporotic patients. However, they are many problems, including poor bioavailability and adherence, as well as adverse drug reactions. Therefore, intravenous administration of bisphosphonates has been developed to resolve these problems. In Japan today, alendronate and ibandronate have been approved for intravenous administration, and they have advantages, such as good adherence and better gastrointestinal tolerability, compared to oral administration. We attempted to confirm the effects of administration of intravenous alendronate, which is not inferior to oral administration, for osteoporotic patients in earlier research. 200 consecutive Japanese over 70 years-old postmenopausal women who visited the first author’s orthopedic clinic and had femoral neck or lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) values more than 2.5 SD lower than the reference values were randomly enrolled in this study. 100 subjects were recruited for administration of intravenous alendronates because of their poor adherence, no respond of treatment status, and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Furthermore, 10 of these subjects were excluded due to discontinuation, and a total of 90 subjects were eligible for the intravenous group. The remaining 50 patients received oral alendronate. The present study also showed no significant difference between intravenous and oral administration with respect to BMD, biochemical bone turnover markers, and the incidence of fractures. These results show that intravenous administration of alendronate is not inferior to oral alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis. Therefore, intravenous administration of alendronate can be recommended if patients do not tolerate or adhere to oral bisphosphonates.