Faculty Bibliography

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake.

BACKGROUND:Coronavirus (CoV) disease (COVID)-19 poses difficult situations in which the ethical course of action is not clear, or choices are made between equally unacceptable responses. METHODS:A web search was performed using the terms "bioethics; COVID-19; ethics; severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2; emergent care; pandemic; and public health emergencies." RESULTS:Protection from COVID-19 has resulted in the cancellation of necessary medical interventions, lengthened suffering, and potential non-COVID-19 deaths. Prolonged lockdown reduced well-being, triggering or aggravating mental illnesses and violence, and escalated medical risks. Collateral damage includes restrictions on visitations to hospitals, alienation from the deceased relative, or lack of warm caring of patients. Finally, in a public health crisis, public health interest overrides individual rights if it results in severe harm to the community. CONCLUSION:Balancing ethical dilemmas are one more challenge in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4-18] versus 6 [IQR, 3-14]), P=0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08-2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2-6] versus 2 [IQR, 1-4], P<0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22-8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes.

As all other aspects in times of the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, carrying-out quality clinical research has been challenging. Many well-established paradigms have shifted as a consequence of the rapid demand for new knowledge. New treatments are fast-moving, informed consent forms are difficult to obtain, a competitive invitation from researchers to participate in different studies is common, and non-COVID-19 research protocols are suffering continuity. However, these challenges should not imply taking shortcuts or accepting deficiencies in bioethical standards, but rather enhance the alertness for rigorous ethical approaches despite these less than ideal circumstances. In this manuscript, we point out some interrogates in COVID-19 research and outline possible strategies to overcome the difficult task to continue with high-quality research without violating the ethical principles.

BACKGROUND:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may lead to severe systemic inflammatory response, pulmonary damage, and even acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This in turn may result in respiratory failure and in death. Experimentally, acetylcholine (ACh) modulates the acute inflammatory response, a neuro-immune mechanism known as the inflammatory reflex. Recent clinical evidence suggest that electrical and chemical stimulation of the inflammatory reflex may reduce the burden of inflammation in chronic inflammatory diseases. Pyridostigmine (PDG), an ACh-esterase inhibitor (i-ACh-e), increases the half-life of endogenous ACh, therefore mimicking the inflammatory reflex. This clinical trial is aimed at evaluating if add-on of PDG leads to a decrease of invasive mechanical ventilation and death among patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS:A parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 clinical trial to test the efficacy of pyridostigmine bromide 60 mg/day P.O. to reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study will provide preliminary evidence of whether or not -by decreasing systemic inflammation- add-on PDG can improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04343963 (registered on April 14, 2020).