Background and Objectives: Researchers all around the world are working hard to find an effective treatment for the new coronavirus 2019. We performed a comprehensive systematic review to investigate the latest clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment with Remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Google scholar and MedRxiv for relevant observational and interventional studies. The outcomes measures were mortality rates, improvement rates, time to clinical improvement, all adverse event rates and severe adverse event rates. Results: Three randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies were included in our study. In the 2 cohort studies, patients received Remdesivir for 10 days. 2 RCTs evaluated 10-day efficacy of treatment with Remdesivir versus placebo group and the other RCT compared its 5-day regimen versus 10-day regimen. Visual inspection of the forest plots revealed that the efficacy of Remdesivir was not much different in reducing 28-day mortality versus 14-day mortality rates. Besides, 10-day treatment regimen overpowered 5-day treatment and placebo in decreasing time to clinical improvement. All adverse event rates did not have a significant difference; however, severe adverse event rate was lower in the 5-day Remdesivir group compared to the 10-day and placebo groups. Conclusion: 5-day course of Remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients is probably efficacious and safe, and patients without invasive mechanical ventilation benefit the most. Treatment can be extended to 10 days if satisfactory improvement is not seen by day 5. Most benefits from Remdesivir therapy take place in the first 14 days of the start of the treatment.

Apart from conjunctival involvement which is the most well-known ocular manifestation of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are multiple reports of the involvement of other ocular structures by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We comprehensively reviewed PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar for available evidence regarding COVID-19 various ocular manifestations, with special focus on less known and unusual ocular findings. We then categorized the findings based on the parts of the eye which was involved. In anterior sections of the eye, the involvement of the eyelid (tarsadenitis), conjunctiva and cornea (follicular conjunctivitis, pseudomembranous conjunctivitis, and keratoconjunctivitis), episclera (nodular episcleritis), uvea (anterior uveitis) were reported. Also, third, fourth, and sixth nerve palsy, retinal vasculitis, retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) changes (hyper-reflective lesions and increased retinal nerve fiber layer thickness [RNFLT]), optic neuritis, papillophlebitis, Miller Fisher syndrome, posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy (PRES), ophthalmic artery and central retinal artery occlusion, and polyneuritis cranialis were reported in different studies. Postmortem evaluation of COVID-19 patients detected no viral RNA in different anterior and posterior segments of the eyes. However, another study revealed a 21.4% positivity of the retinal biopsies of dead patients. The results of this study can help ophthalmologists to be vigilant when they see these findings in a suspected case of COVID-19. In addition, wearing face masks and protective goggles or eye shields are recommended, especially in high-risk contacts.

Backgrounds Healthcare workers are at risk of mental illness during COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the level of perceived risk and adherence to preventive behaviors regarding COVID-19 among medical students and physicians. Materials and methods We conducted an online nationwide cross-sectional survey among Iranian physicians and medical students. We collected data regarding perceived risk, perceived stress scale (P·S·S.), attitude, practice, and information sources. We assessed the association of four main outcomes (risk perception, P·S.S. score, attitude, and practice) with demographic variables. Results A total of 1085 participants with an overall fear score of 6.48 ± 2.29 out of 10 filled the questionnaires. Older and more educated participants had a higher risk perception level and adherence to protective measures. In contrary, participants in lower-risk workplaces had lower risk perception scores. Main sources of information did not affect the scores of risk perception, P·S·S., and practice. Higher risk perception scores were observed in those with higher practice and P·S.S. scores. Contrary to risk perception, the P·S.S. score was not affected by many of the demographic variables, except gender. The most positive attitude was observed in individuals with a higher level of trust in governmental information sources. Participants with higher P·S.S. scores adhered more to protective measures. Conclusion Risk perception had the greatest impact on adherence to preventive behaviors. Therefore, policymakers should consider perceived risk as a predictor of the extension of the pandemic. Both risk perception and P·S.S. reflect the severity of fear from COVID-19; however, P·S.S. is less affected by sociodemographic and workplace characteristics.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is an ongoing health concern. In addition to affecting the respiratory system, COVID-19 can potentially damage other systems in the body, leading to extra-pulmonary manifestations. Hepatic manifestations are among the common consequences of COVID-19. Although the precise mechanism of liver injury is still questionable, several mechanisms have been hypothesized, including direct viral effect, cytokine storm, hypoxic-ischemic injury, hypoxia-reperfusion injury, ferroptosis, and hepatotoxic medications. Risk factors of COVID-19-induced liver injury include severe COVID-19 infection, male gender, advanced age, obesity, and underlying diseases. The presentations of liver involvement comprise abnormalities in liver enzymes and radiologic findings, which can be utilized to predict the prognosis. Increased gamma-glutamyltransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase levels with hypoalbuminemia can indicate severe liver injury and anticipate the need for intensive care units’ hospitalization. In imaging, a lower liver-to-spleen ratio and liver computed tomography attenuation may indicate a more severe illness. Furthermore, chronic liver disease patients are at a higher risk for severe disease and death from COVID-19. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease had the highest risk of advanced COVID-19 disease and death, followed by metabolic-associated fatty liver disease and cirrhosis. In addition to COVID-19-induced liver injury, the pandemic has also altered the epidemiology and pattern of some hepatic diseases, such as alcoholic liver disease and hepatitis B. Therefore, it warrants special vigilance and awareness by healthcare professionals to screen and treat COVID-19-associated liver injury accordingly.

Background: Researchers are working hard to find an effective treatment for the new coronavirus 2019. We performed a comprehensive systematic review to investigate the latest clinical evidence on the treatment efficacy and safety of Remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Google scholar, and MedRxiv for relevant observational and interventional studies. Measured outcomes were mortality rates, improvement rates, time to clinical improvement, all adverse event rates and severe adverse event rates. Results: 3 RCTs and 2 cohorts were included in our study. In 2 cohort studies, patients received Remdesivir for 10 days. 2 RCTs evaluated 10-day treatment of Remdesivir efficacy versus placebo group and the other RCT compared its 5-day regimen versus 10-day regimen. Visual inspection of the forest plots revealed that Remdesivir efficacy was not much different in reducing 28-day mortality versus 14-day mortality rates. Besides, 10-day treatment regimen overpowers 5-day treatment and placebo in decreasing time to clinical improvement. All adverse event rates did not have significant difference; however, severe adverse event rate was lower in 5-day Remdesivir group compared to 10-day and placebo groups. Conclusion: 5-day course of Remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients is probably efficacious and safe and patients without invasive mechanical ventilation benefit the most. Treatment can be extended to 10 days if satisfactory improvement is not seen by day 5. Most benefits from Remdesivir therapy take place in the first 14 days of the start of the treatment.