Introduction In the absence of a universally accepted association between smoking and COVID-19 health outcomes, we investigated this relationship in a representative cohort from one of the world’s highest tobacco consuming regions. This is the first report from the Middle East and North Africa that tackles specifically the association of smoking and COVID-19 mortality while demonstrating a novel sex-discrepancy in the survival rates among patients. Methods Clinical data for 743 hospitalized COVID-19 patients was retrospectively collected from the leading centre for COVID-19 testing and treatment in Lebanon. Logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age and stratified by sex were used to assess the association between the current cigarette smoking status of patients and COVID-19 outcomes. Results In addition to the high smoking prevalence among our hospitalized COVID-19 patients (42.3%), enrolled smokers tended to have higher reported ICU admissions (28.3% vs 16.6%, p<0.001), longer length of stay in the hospital (12.0 ± 7.8 vs 10.8 days, p<0.001) and higher death incidences as compared to non-smokers (60.5% vs 39.5%, p<0.001). Smokers had an elevated odds ratio for death (OR = 2.3, p<0.001) and for ICU admission (OR = 2.0, p<0.001) which remained significant in a multivariate regression model. Once adjusted for age and stratified by sex, our data revealed that current smoking status reduces survival rate in male patients ([HR] = 1.9 [95% (CI), 1.029–3.616]; p = 0.041) but it does not affect survival outcomes among hospitalized female patients([HR] = 0.79 [95% CI = 0.374–1.689]; p = 0.551). Conclusion A high smoking prevalence was detected in our hospitalized COVID-19 cohort combined with worse prognosis and higher mortality rate in smoking patients. Our study was the first to highlight potential sex-specific consequences for smoking on COVID-19 outcomes that might further explain the higher vulnerability to death from this disease among men.

Articles reporting research may be full length or brief reports. These should report original research findings within the journal's scope. Papers should generally be a maximum of 4000 words in length, excluding tables, references, and abstract and key points of the article, whilst it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 30. Review PapersComprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope. There are two types of review papers:-systematic review papers: respond to a specific research question, accrue from criterion-based selection of sources, include a quantitative synthesis and a statistical method (meta-analysis), and should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity should be noted in methods section. -narrative review papers: the research question may be broad, and the scope of this review is to discuss a specific topic and keep the readers up-to-date about it. This type of review does not necessarily include a methodological approach and its synthesis is usually qualitative. Narrative reviews should include in a developments section, with details regarding data sources used, keywords applied, time restrictions and study types selected. Developments should be based on actual review articles. All review papers should be generally less than 6000 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures and references. References should not exceed 50. Conclusion of the reviews should be specific and stem from the findings. Short ReportsBrief reports of data from original research. Short reports are shorter versions of original articles, may include one table or figure, should not exceed 1500 words, and it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 15. Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.

Municipalities in Lebanon represent local governments at the basic community level. The proximity of the municipality to the local community and its knowledge of available resources, can be crucial in easing the impact of any disaster. This study aimed to document the range of preparedness/reactivity of municipalities as COVID-19 swept through Lebanon. A qualitative case study was implemented to explore municipal response to control the epidemic, using in-depth semi-structured interviews with twenty-seven stakeholders from nine municipalities across all governorates in Lebanon. In each municipality, participants included mayors/deputy mayors, available members of municipal councils, prominent community leaders, health care professionals, and managers of local NGOs. The collected data were analyzed using the comparative thematic analysis. The socioecological model was adopted to illustrate the dynamic interplay between the barriers and facilitators at all ecological levels. The response to the pandemic differed significantly in volume and nature among different municipalities across regions, with rural areas clearly disadvantaged in terms of adequacy and completeness of response. Barriers consistently mentioned by most municipalities included economic collapse and poverty, shortage in resources, lack of support from the central government, stigma, lack of awareness, underreporting, flaws in the MOPH surveillance system, impeded accessibility to healthcare services, limited number and weak role of municipal police, increased mental illnesses, and political patronage, favoritism, and interference. On the other hand, increased donations, community engagement, social support and empathy, sufficient human resources, the effective role of healthcare systems, and good governance were identified as key facilitators. The socioecological model identified several multi-level facilitators and loopholes which can be addressed through a suggested strategic “roadmap” providing evidence-based interventions for future epidemics. It is crucial meanwhile that the central government strengthens the administrative and financial resources of municipalities in preparing and rapidly deploying the expected optimal response.

Background: Clinical features of confirmed COVID-19 cases cover a wide spectrum. Aims: To study the clinical, radiological and virological features of the first 150 patients with COVID-19 in Lebanon. Methods: Our university hospital was designated as the primary COVID-19 care centre in Lebanon. Between 21 February 2020, the date of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Lebanon, and 3 April 2020, our team treated 150 patients diagnosed with COVID-19. In this prospective descriptive study, we present our experience in treating these patients, specifically the diagnostic criteria, outcome, and demographic, clinical, radiological and biological characteristics. Results: Ninety-five (63.33%) of the patients were male and 55 (36.67%) were female. Most patients (58%) were aged >50 years, and 8 (5.33%) were healthcare workers. Diagnosis was based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, and patients were classified as mild, moderate or critical. Fifteen (10%) patients had a critical presentation and fever was the most prominent symptom at presentation. One hundred and thirty-eight (92%) patients underwent radiological evaluation. The most common laboratory findings were lymphocytopenia (34.38%), followed by neutropenia (28.13%), but leukocytosis was not prevalent (1.56%). Old age and comorbidity were significant indicators in patient risk stratification. Chest computed tomography was an invaluable method of diagnosis and management. Our radiological findings were consistent with the published literature. Conclusion: Our study underlines the variable presentation of COVID-19, the difference in severity, and the diverse methods of diagnosis. This suggests the need for a tailored approach, taking into consideration the wide spectrum of presentation.