Search

Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. Areas covered We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). Expert opinion Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: −7.0 [95% CI: −14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: −5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: −5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events. Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.

Objective Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. Methods We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. Results Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). Conclusion This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Blood bank medical coverage can be daunting to both the practicing general pathologist and the pathology resident in training. Even for the blood bank specialist physician, decisionmaking on call can be stressful. The blood bank is somewhat unique among the clinical laboratories in that many of the issues that arise after-hours and on weekends are urgent, if not lifethreatening, and involve therapeutic measures in addition to diagnostic testing. Blood bank decisions may also require more clinical information than was provided with the blood sample received. The transfusion medicine physician must often review patient charts or laboratory results from other divisions of the laboratory, as well as discuss the patient condition with the ordering physician. Thus, blood bank medical practice can be more clinically focused and interactive than some of the other laboratory specialties. This review will cover some of the more common situations that arise that involve the pathologist in the blood bank after hours. Most decisions can be divided into component selection issues and testing issues. Table 1 lists some of the common situations in each category. Almost by definition, if the decision must be made after regular on site medical staffing hours, the decision is urgent in nature. Therefore, these decisions carry an increased level of stress and the need to possess certain knowledge, experience, or other resources to make a timely decision.

We report our experience with flow cytometric (FC) analysis of 29 cases of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Morphologic analysis of processed cytocentrifuged preparations demonstrated neoplastic cells in 28 cases. In 25 of these, an aberrant lymphoid population was detected by FC analysis. The majority showed high orthogonal light scatter, similar to monocytes or granulocytes. Of the antigens CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, and CD7, 5 cases expressed 1, 8 expressed 2, 6 expressed 3, 3 expressed 4, and 3 expressed all 5. CD4 was expressed most commonly (20/25 [80%]), followed by CD2 (18/25 [72%]), CD3 (10/25 [40%]), and CD5 and CD7 (8/25 [32%] each). CD45 was expressed in 23 of 25 cases and CD13 in 7 of 9. Of 21 cases, 13 were anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)+, all of which were CD4+, vs 5 of 8 ALK - cases (P = .042). Most ALCLs can be detected and characterized by multiparameter FC analysis. However, light scatter gating on typical lymphoid regions may yield false-negative results in a substantial number of cases.