The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.Abbreviations: CDC = centers for disease control and prevention, CNA = certified nurse assistant, COVID-19 = 2019 novel coronavirus disease, HCP = health care professionals, PPE = personal protective equipment, UVGI = ultraviolet germicidal irradiation.

Background Pseudobulbar affect is a very distressing and underdiagnosed neuropsychiatric disorder that causes contextually inappropriate episodes of laughing and crying and general emotional incontinence. Although many proposed etiologies exist, the most widely accepted theory espouses the disruption of a corticopontine–cerebellar circuit that governs the modulation of emotional response. Pseudobulbar affect is commonly diagnosed secondary to primary neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and traumatic brain injury. Traditional pharmacological treatment of pseudobulbar affect is largely comprised of antidepressant therapy, including tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as fluvoxamine. However, neither of these medication classes has been studied for the treatment of pseudobulbar affect in controlled trials, and their utility remains questionable. Case presentation We describe a case of a 62-year-old Caucasian man with history of traumatic brain injury, ischemic brainstem stroke, and depression who developed intractable pseudobulbar affect. This patient’s intensely distressing symptoms were not alleviated by amitriptyline. However, after being placed on fixed-dose 20 mg/10 mg dextromethorphan/quinidine (Nuedexta), our patient experienced complete resolution of his symptoms. He has experienced no deleterious side effects. Conclusions This case provides anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of dextromethorphan/quinidine in the treatment of pseudobulbar affect with remarkably swift and complete cessation of symptoms. As a secondary point, it is worth noting that our patient had experienced two devastating neurological traumas, both in anatomical areas that have been implicated in the corticopontine–cerebellar circuit thought to be responsible for pseudobulbar affect. However, only the second trauma, an acute left pontine infarction, produced symptoms of emotional disinhibition. The authors hope that reporting this case will provide both context for physicians managing this condition and hope for patients with this socially and psychiatrically damaging disease.

Electrocardiographic (ECG) findings in patients admitted with COVID-19 and a decision tree to predict their survival were assessed. 145 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 infection were selected. Patient demographics, ECG variables, peak troponins, use of standard medications, and clinical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and a predictive model of survival was developed using classification tree analysis. Of the 145 admitted patients, 38 (26%) died. Deceased patients were more likely to have a significantly higher incidence of poor R-Wave progression [6 of 37 (16.2%) Vs. 0 of 104 (0%), p < 0.001] as well as prolonged QTc values [24 of 37 (64.9%) Vs. 38 of 99 (38.4%), p 0.006]. Significant ST segment depressions were found in 5 of 37 (13.5%) of the deceased category compared to 0% in the non-deceased (p < 0.01). Right and/or left atrial enlargement was more prevalent in the deceased cohort [7 of 37 (18.9%) Vs. 4 of 104 (3.8%), p = 0.03]. Bundle branch blocks were more prevalent in the deceased group [9 of 35 (25.8%) Vs. 7 of 104 (6.7%), p 0.002]. Peak troponins were significantly higher in the deceased group (1.0 Vs 0.07 ng/ml, p < 0.001) A prediction tree built utilizing age, PACs, troponins and QTc had an accuracy of 85.5%. 65 of 74 patients (87.8%) were correctly predicted to survive, while 23 of 29 (79.3%) were correctly predicted to become deceased. Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the parameters of age, QT interval, troponin and PACs are useful for prognostication and help predict survival with reasonable accuracy.