Introduction Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the global spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Our understanding of the impact this virus has on the nervous system is limited. Our review aims to inform and improve decision-making among the physicians treating COVID-19 by presenting a systematic analysis of the neurological manifestations experienced within these patients. Methods Any study, released prior to May 20, 2020, that reported neurological manifestations in patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 was systematically reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic review and Meta-Analysis) statement. Results Our systematic review included data from 37 articles: twelve retrospective studies, two prospective studies, and the rest case reports/series. The most commonly reported neurological manifestations of COVID-19 were myalgia, headache, altered sensorium, hyposmia, and hypogeusia. Uncommonly, COVID-19 can also present with central nervous system manifestations such as ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, encephalo-myelitis, and acute myelitis, peripheral nervous manifestations such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy, and skeletal muscle manifestations such as rhabdomyolysis. Conclusion While COVID-19 typically presents as a self-limiting respiratory disease, it has been reported in up to 20% of patients to progress to severe illness with multi-organ involvement. The neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are not uncommon, but our study found most resolve with treatment of the underlying infection. Although the timeliness of this review engages current challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, readers must not ignore the limitations and biases intrinsic to an early investigation.

BackgroundSolute-linked carrier 26 gene family 6 (SLC26A6), which is mainly expressed in intestines and kidneys, is a multifunctional anion transporter crucial in the transport of oxalate anions. This study aimed to investigate the role of kidney SLC26A6 in urolithiasis.MethodsPatients were divided into two groups: stone formers and nonstone formers. Samples were collected from patients following nephrectomy. Lentivirus with Slc26a6 (lentivirus-Slc26a6) sequence and lentivirus with siRNA-Slc26a6 (lentivirus-siRNA-Slc26a6) sequence were transfected into rats’ kidneys respectively and Slc26a6 expression was detected using Western blot and immunohistochemical analyses. After administering ethylene glycol, oxalate concentration and prevalence of stone formation between the transgenic and control groups were measured using 24-h urine analysis and Von Kossa staining, respectively.ResultsImmunohistochemical and Western blot analyses indicated that stone formers had a significantly higher level of expression of SLC26A6 in the kidney compared with the control group. After lentivirus infection, the urinary oxalate concentration and rate of stone formation in lentivirus-Slc26a6-tranfected rats increased remarkably, while lentivirus-siRNA-Slc26a6-transfected rats showed few crystals.ConclusionThe results showed that high expression levels of renal SLC26A6 may account for kidney stone formation. Downregulating the expression of SLC26A6 in the kidney may be a potential therapeutic target to prevent or treat urolithiasis.

Objective. We aimed to examine the performance of the distress thermometer (DT) and identify the prevalence and risk factors associated with psychological distress (PD) in heterogeneous cancer patients. Methods. This cross-sectional study enrolled 1496 heterogeneous cancer patients from the inpatient and outpatient departments. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) of DT was evaluated against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Total (HADS-T ≥15). An area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and clinical utility index were calculated. Multiple binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with PD. Results. Referring to ROC analysis, DT showed good discriminating accuracy (AUC = 0.88). A cutoff score of 4 was established, and it yielded sensitivity (0.81), specificity (0.88), PPV (0.87), NPV (0.82), and clinical utility indexes (screening utility = 0.71 and case-finding utility = 0.73). 46.5% of our participants was distressed. Lower education levels (odd ratio (OR) = 1.39), advanced stage (OR = 1.85), active disease status (OR = 1.82), lack of exercise (OR = 3.03), diagnosis known (OR = 0.64), emotional problems (OR = 3.54), and physical problems (OR = 8.62) were the predictive factors for PD. Conclusion. DT with a cutoff score (≥4) is a comprehensive, appropriate, and practical initial screener for PD in cancer patients. Predicting factors should be considered together for effective management of PD in such population.