Importance/Background: During current public health emergency of COVID-19 pandemic, repurposing of existing antiviral drugs may be an efficient strategy since there is no proven effective treatment. Published literature shows Remdesivir has broad-spectrum antiviral activity against numerous RNA viruses and has been recently recognized as a promising therapy against SARS-CoV-2.Methods: A systematic search was conducted for full length manuscripts published between inception and July 19th, 2020 focussing on efficacy and safety of Remdesivir in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality rate and median days to recovery based on the available pooled data. The secondary outcome was adverse events rate and drug discontinuation rate.Statistical Analysis: All outcomes were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (Bio stat, Englewood, NJ, USA).Results: A total of 1,895 patients from 9 studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. In patients treated with Remdesivir, the mean recovery time was 15.84 days (95% CI 11.68–20, SE 2.12; I2 = 97.24) and the pooled mortality rate was 11.3% (95% CI 7.9–16%; I2 = 74.85). However, treatment with Remdesivir was associated with adverse effects (55.3%, 95% CI 31.5–76.9%; I2 = 97.66) eventually warranting the discontinuation of the drug (17.8%, 95% CI 8.6–33.1%; I2 = 95.64). The meta-analysis of three clinical trials indicated that administration of Remdesivir significantly reduces the mortality compared to the placebo (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58–0.84, p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 16.6).Conclusions and Relevance: The result of contemporary meta-analysis suggests mortality benefit with Remdesivir in COVID-19 and median recovery time was over 2 weeks. The pooled mortality with Remdesivir was found to be very low, and this analysis can shed light on this potential treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy, consisting of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major factor of maternal mortality. Several patient-specific risk factors along with the physiologic changes of pregnancy promote a state of hypercoagulability in pregnant women. Detailed assessment of all pregnant women can establish a risk profile that would guide clinical decisions, and balance potential therapeutic benefits with side effects. Differentiating between physiologic changes of pregnancy and symptoms of VTE can be challenging and warrants meticulous clinical evaluation. Timely and accurate diagnosis of VTE with proper imaging is essential for its management, and systemic anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of VTE prevention and therapy. Furthermore, advanced invasive treatment options such as inferior vena cava filters and thrombectomy can be considered for complex cases. Importantly, the risk of systemic anticoagulation should be balanced against the risk of VTE-associated morbidity and mortality for mother and fetus, and an informed decision should be made. In this review, we present an up-to-date overview of VTE management in pregnancy and the postpartum period.

Purpose: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess association of mortality in COVID-19 patients on Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs). A secondary objective is to assess associations with higher severity of the disease in COVID-19 patients.Materials and Methods: We searched multiple COVID-19 databases (WHO, CDC, LIT-COVID) for longitudinal studies globally reporting mortality and severity published before January 18th, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using 53 studies for mortality outcome and 43 for the severity outcome. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios were generated to describe overall effect size using random effect models. To account for between study results variations, multivariate meta-regression was performed with preselected covariates using maximum likelihood method for both the mortality and severity models.Result: Our findings showed that the use of ACEIs/ARBs did not significantly influence either mortality (OR = 1.16 95% CI 0.94–1.44, p = 0.15, I2 = 93.2%) or severity (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.94–1.48, p = 0.15, I2 = 91.1%) in comparison to not being on ACEIs/ARBs in COVID-19 positive patients. Multivariate meta-regression for the mortality model demonstrated that 36% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, gender, and proportion of heart diseases in the study samples. Multivariate meta-regression for the severity model demonstrated that 8% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, proportion of diabetes, heart disease and study country in the study samples.Conclusion: We found no association of mortality or severity in COVID-19 patients taking ACEIs/ARBs.

Left main (LM) coronary artery bifurcation stenting is a challenging topic due to the distinct anatomy and wall structure of LM. In this work, we investigated computationally and experimentally the mechanical performance of a novel everolimus-eluting stent (SYNERGY MEGATRON) purpose-built for interventions to large proximal coronary segments, including LM. MEGATRON stent has been purposefully designed to sustain its structural integrity at higher expansion diameters and to provide optimal lumen coverage. Four patient-specific LM geometries were 3D reconstructed and stented computationally with finite element analysis in a well-validated computational stent simulation platform under different homogeneous and heterogeneous plaque conditions. Four different everolimus-eluting stent designs (9-peak prototype MEGATRON, 10-peak prototype MEGATRON, 12-peak MEGATRON, and SYNERGY) were deployed computationally in all bifurcation geometries at three different diameters (i.e., 3.5, 4.5, and 5.0 mm). The stent designs were also expanded experimentally from 3.5 to 5.0 mm (blind analysis). Stent morphometric and biomechanical indices were calculated in the computational and experimental studies. In the computational studies the 12-peak MEGATRON exhibited significantly greater expansion, better scaffolding, smaller vessel prolapse, and greater radial strength (expressed as normalized hoop force) than the 9-peak MEGATRON, 10-peak MEGATRON, or SYNERGY (p < 0.05). Larger stent expansion diameters had significantly better radial strength and worse scaffolding than smaller stent diameters (p < 0.001). Computational stenting showed comparable scaffolding and radial strength with experimental stenting. 12-peak MEGATRON exhibited better mechanical performance than the 9-peak MEGATRON, 10-peak MEGATRON, or SYNERGY. Patient-specific computational LM stenting simulations can accurately reproduce experimental stent testing, providing an attractive framework for cost- and time-effective stent research and development.

Importance/BackgroundDespite the global healthcare’s exhaustive efforts to treat COVID-19, we still do not have an effective cure for it. Repurposing Ivermectin, a known antiparasitic agent, for treating COVID-19 has demonstrated positive results in several studies. We aim to evaluate the benefit and risk of Ivermectin in COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for full-text manuscripts published from February 1, 2020 to March 27, 2021 that focused on efficacy and safety of Ivermectin therapy against COVID-19. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; secondary outcomes were - adverse effects, need for mechanical ventilation. Random-effects models were used for all analysis.ResultsWe included a total of 38 studies (n=15,002) in the qualitative analysis (Mortality N=28, ICU admission= 8, Mechanical Ventilation= 10, Adverse events=28) and out of these, 30 studies (n=11,291) were included in the quantitative analysis (Mortality N=22, ICU admission= 5, Mechanical Ventilation= 9, Adverse events=17). In the mortality meta-analysis, odds of death were lower in the Ivermectin-arm compared to the non-Ivermectin arm. (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.70; I2=81%). Subgroup analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with severity-based data showed mortality benefit overall (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.72; I2=53%) and in the mild/moderate sub-group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.33; I2=0%). Benefit of Ivermectin in decreasing; the need for ICU admission (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17-1.37; I2=59%) and mechanical ventilation (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40-1.04; I2=17%) was not significant. The quantitative analysis of adverse effects with Ivermectin use was inconclusive (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64-1.33; I2=14%).ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that Ivermectin could be an effective adjuvant therapy in reducing mortality, particularly in patients with mild-moderate clinical presentation of COVID-19. Trends of decreased need for ICU admissions and mechanical ventilation were observed but were not significant. The analysis for adverse effects was inconclusive.HighlightsWhat We Already Know about This TopicCOVID-19 is an ongoing global pandemic, for which Ivermectin has been tried on a therapeutic and prophylactic basis.Results from several clinical trials and observational studies suggest that Ivermectin may improve survival and clinical outcomes with a good safety profile when compared with other treatments; however, the current evidence is limited.What This Article Tells Us That Is NewThis systematic review and meta-analysis provide a summary of the latest literature on the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin use for COVID-19.Based on our quantitative and qualitative analysis, we found that Ivermectin may be a potentially useful adjuvant therapy in reducing mortality, the need for ICU admissions and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients.