COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the well-established, traditional structure of medical education. Τhe new limitations of physical presence have accelerated the development of an online learning environment, comprising both of asynchronous and synchronous distance education, and the introduction of novel ways of student assessment. At the same time, this prolonged crisis had serious implications on the lives of medical students including their psychological well-being and the impact on their academic trajectories. The new reality has, on many occasions, triggered the ‘acting up’ of medical students as frontline healthcare staff, which has been perceived by many of them as a positive learning and contributing experience, and has led to a variety of responses from the educational institutions. All things considered, the urgency for rapid and novel adaptations to the new circumstances has functioned as a springboard for remarkable innovations in medical education,including the promotion of a more “evidence-based” approach.

(1) Background: A considerable number of systematic reviews, with substantial heterogeneity regarding their methods and included populations, on the impact of COVID-19 on infected pregnant women and their neonates, has emerged. The aim was to describe the obstetric-perinatal and neonatal outcome of infected pregnant women and their newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Methods: Three bibliographical databases were searched (last search: 10 September 2020). Quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Primary outcomes included mode of delivery, preterm delivery/labor, premature rupture of membranes (PROM/pPROM) and abortions/miscarriages. Outcomes were mainly presented as ranges. A separate analysis, including only moderate and high-quality systematic reviews, was also conducted. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020214447); (3) Results: Thirty-nine reviews were analyzed. Reported rates, regarding both preterm and term gestations, varied between 52.3 and 95.8% for cesarean sections; 4.2–44.7% for vaginal deliveries; 14.3–63.8% specifically for preterm deliveries and 22.7–32.2% for preterm labor; 5.3–12.7% for PROM and 6.4–16.1% for pPROM. Maternal anxiety for potential fetal infection contributed to abortion decisions, while SARS-CoV-2-related miscarriages could not be excluded. Maternal ICU admission and mechanical ventilation rates were 3–28.5% and 1.4–12%, respectively. Maternal mortality rate was <2%, while stillbirth, neonatal ICU admission and mortality rates were <2.5%, 3.1–76.9% and <3%, respectively. Neonatal PCR positivity rates ranged between 1.6% and 10%. After accounting for quality of studies, ranges of our primary outcomes remained almost unchanged, while among our secondary outcomes, maternal ICU admission (3–10%) and mechanical ventilation rates (1.4–5.5%) were found to be relatively lower; (4) Conclusions: Increased rates of cesarean sections and preterm birth rates were found, with iatrogenic reasons potentially involved. In cases of symptomatic women with confirmed infection, high maternal and neonatal ICU admission rates should raise some concerns. The probability of vertical transmission cannot be excluded. Further original studies on women from all trimesters are warranted.

The prediction of in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome is an imperative achievement in assisted reproduction, substantially aiding infertile couples, health systems and communities. To date, the assessment of infertile couples depends on medical/reproductive history, biochemical indications and investigations of the reproductive tract, along with data obtained from previous IVF cycles, if any. Our project aims to develop a novel tool, integrating omics and artificial intelligence, to propose optimal treatment options and enhance treatment success rates. For this purpose, we will proceed with the following: (1) recording subfertile couples’ lifestyle and demographic parameters and previous IVF cycle characteristics; (2) measurement and evaluation of metabolomics, transcriptomics and biomarkers, and deep machine learning assessment of the oocyte, sperm and embryo; (3) creation of artificial neural network models to increase objectivity and accuracy in comparison to traditional techniques for the improvement of the success rates of IVF cycles following an IVF failure. Therefore, “omics” data are a valuable parameter for embryo selection optimization and promoting personalized IVF treatment. “Omics” combined with predictive models will substantially promote health management individualization; contribute to the successful treatment of infertile couples, particularly those with unexplained infertility or repeated implantation failures; and reduce multiple gestation rates.

Current standard treatment of COVID-19 lacks in effective antiviral options. Plitidepsin, a cyclic depsipeptide authorized in Australia for patients with refractory multiple myeloma, has recently emerged as a candidate anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. The aim of this review was to summarize current knowledge on plitidepsin’s clinical profile, anti-tumour and anti-SARS-CoV-2 mechanisms and correlate this with available or anticipated, preclinical or clinical evidence on the drug’s potential for COVID-19 treatment.PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv and bioRxiv databases were searched.Plitidepsinexerts its anti-tumour and antiviral properties primarily through acting on isoforms of the host cell’s eukaryotic-translation-elongation-factor-1-alpha (eEF1A). Through inhibiting eEF1A and therefore translation of necessary viral proteins, it behaves as a “host-directed” anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. In respect to its potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 properties, the drug has demonstrated superior ex vivo efficacy compared to other host-directed agents and remdesivir, and it might retain its antiviral effect against the more transmittable B.1.1.7 variant. Its well-studied safety profile, also in combination with dexamethasone, may accelerate its repurposing chances for COVID-19 treatment. Preliminary findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, have suggested potential safety and efficacy of plitidepsin, in terms of viral load reduction and clinical resolution. However, the still incomplete understanding of its exact integration into host cell–SARS-CoV-2 interactions, its intravenous administration exclusively purposing it for hospital settings the and precocity of clinical data are currently considered its chief deficits. A phase III trial is being planned to compare the plitidepsin–dexamethasone regimen to the current standard of care only in moderately affected hospitalized patients. Despite plitidepsin’s preclinical efficacy, current clinical evidence is inadequate for its registration in COVID-19 patients.Therefore, multicentre trials on the drug’s efficacy, potentially also studying populations of emerging SARS-CoV-2 lineages, are warranted.