Search

Background: Studies on COVID-19 infection in pregnancy thus far have largely focused on characterizing maternal and neonatal clinical characteristics. However, another evolving focus is assessing and mitigating the risk of vertical transmission amongst COVID-19-positive mothers. The objective of this review was to summarize the current evidence on the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in the third trimester and its effects on the neonate., Methods: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) were searched from January 2020 to May 2020, with continuous surveillance., Results: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 157 mothers and 160 neonates. The mean age of the pregnant patients was 30.8 years and the mean gestational period was 37 weeks and 1 d. Currently, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. Amongst 81 (69%) neonates who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5 (6%) had a positive result. However, amongst these 5 neonates, the earliest test was performed at 16 h after birth, and only 1 neonate was positive when they were later re-tested. However, this neonate initially tested negative at birth, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely hospital-acquired rather than vertically transmitted. 13 (8%) neonates had complications or symptoms., Conclusions: The findings of this rapid descriptive review based on early clinical evidence suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to neonate/newborn did not occur. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal management of neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.

Introduction: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic has struck Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) particularly hard. One of the crucial areas in the international community's response relates to accelerating research and knowledge sharing. The aim of this article is to map and characterise the existing empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries and contribute to identify opportunities for strengthening future research., Methods: In this scoping review, articles published between December 2019 and 11 November 2020 were selected if they included an empirical component (explicit scientific methods to collect and analyse primary data), LAC population was researched, and the research was about the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of publication status or language. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Scielo, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos were searched. All titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Data from included studies was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second independent reviewer., Results: 14,406 records were found. After removing duplicates, 5,458 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2,323 full texts were revised to finally include 1,626 empirical studies. The largest portion of research came from people/population of Brazil (54.6%), Mexico (19.1%), Colombia (11.2%), Argentina (10.4%), Peru (10.3%) and Chile (10%), while Caribbean countries concentrated 15.3%. The methodologies most used were cross-sectional studies (34.7%), simulation models (17.5%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (13.6%). Using a modified version of WHO's COVID-19 Coordinated Global Research Roadmap classification, 54.2% were epidemiological studies, followed by clinical management (22.3%) and candidate therapeutics (12.2%). Government and public funds support were reported in 19.2% of studies, followed by universities or research centres (9%), but 47.5% did not include any funding statement., Conclusion: During the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAC countries have contributed to the global research effort primarily with epidemiological studies, with little participation on vaccines research, meaning that this type of knowledge would be imported from elsewhere. Research agendas could be further coordinated aiming to enhance shared self-sufficiency regarding knowledge needs in the region., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the Pan American Health Organization nor the World Bank Group.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the Pan American Health Organization.

Competing Interests: P.A, E.B and P.MC work at the General Secretary of the French Health National Conference, placed within the General Directorate of Health of the Ministry of Health and Solidarity. E. R is the elected President of the French Health National Conference and receives no salary for his role.

Objectives: To map the current evidence on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) administration and identify knowledge gaps in the literature available in this field., Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence databases were searched from January 2015 to March 2020 for systematic reviews published in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish., Results: Eighty-three systematic reviews were included, the quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and data were extracted for all primary outcomes. Perioperative antibiotic administration, the use of first generation cephalosporins, and surgical site infection (SSI) were the most commonly reported for timing of antibiotic administration, drug class, and primary outcome, respectively. Findings showed that, overall, SAP may reduce SSIs compared with a placebo or with no SAP. Results suggested that intraoperative SAP may lower SSI, while postoperative SAP did not show a statistically significant difference., Conclusions: Findings have confirmed the role of SAP in reducing postoperative SSI across various surgeries and do not support the use of antibiotics after surgery to prevent infections. The findings of this scoping review have enhanced the evidence base that can inform decisions regarding the development of global guidelines for the prevention of SSI. However, high-quality systematic reviews and research reflecting diverse populations and settings are needed.

Objectives/background and Objectives: Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine., Methods/study Design and Setting: MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org., Results: We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence., Conclusion: We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) is the most common brain cancer in adults. Radiotherapy (RT) is the most effective post-operative treatment for the patients even though GBM is one of the most radio-resistant tumors. Dead or dying cells within the tumor are thought to promote resistance to treatment through mechanisms that are very poorly understood. We have evaluated the role of Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), a versatile bioactive lipid, in GBM radio-resistance. We used an in vitro approach using 3D primary cultures derived from representative GBM patients. We show that irradiated glioma cells produced and released PGE2 in important quantities independently of the induction of cell death. We demonstrate that the addition of PGE2 enhances cell survival and proliferation though its ability to trans-activate the Epithelial Growth Factor receptor (EGFR) and to activate β-catenin. Indeed, PGE2 can substitute for EGF to promote primary cultures survival and growth in vitro and the effect is likely to occur though the Prostaglandin E2 receptor EP2.