Abstract Introduction Case reports and series are critical to guide initial decision-making in a pandemic, but may have lower rigor because of the need to publish them quickly. This meta-epidemiologic study compares the methodological quality of case series that described the acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 versus those that described long-haul cases. Methods We conducted a systematic review in multiple databases for long-haul case series and reports. We identified early cases of acute COVID-19 synthesized in published systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological quality by pairs of independent reviewers using a tool dedicated for appraising case series. Results We included 239 original case series (81 published in the first year of the pandemic and 158 published later describing long-haul COVID). The methodological quality of both groups of case series was very good (80–100% of series satisfying quality items) except for two items, the selection approach of cases included in the series and ruling out other causes that can explain the main finding described in the series. The appraisal tool demonstrated high agreement and reliability between reviewers. Conclusion The methodological quality of modern case series is high, except for two quality items that represent an area for potential for improvement for authors of case series describing future pandemics.
Post-vaccination COVID Toes (Chilblains) Exacerbated by Rituximab Infusion Suggests Interferon Activation as Mechanism
ABSTRACT Coronavirus disease (COVID) toes are pernio-like skin lesions associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We observed pernio-like skin findings presenting after a Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, which significantly worsened after an infusion of rituximab. This suggests that the mechanism for COVID toes is interferon activation. Military providers may avoid unnecessary referrals for this self-limiting condition by anticipating this adverse effect.
Cell-based therapy to reduce mortality from COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis of human studies on acute respiratory distress syndrome
AbstractSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Significance statement The potential benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome support the rapid commencement of clinical trials, as well as the compassionate use of MSCs that already have documented safety profiles from FDA-approved studies.