The second year of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) pandemic has seen the need to identify and assess the long-term consequences of a SARS-CoV-2 infection on an individual’s overall wellbeing, including adequate cognitive functioning. ‘Cognitive COVID’ is an informal term coined to interchangeably refer to acute changes in cognition during COVID-19 and/or cognitive sequelae with various deficits following the infection. These may manifest as altered levels of consciousness, encephalopathy-like symptoms, delirium, and loss of various memory domains. Dysexecutive syndrome is a peculiar manifestation of ‘Cognitive COVID’ as well. In the previous major outbreaks of viruses like SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and Influenza. There have been attempts to understand the underlying mechanisms describing the causality of similar symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review, therefore, is attempting to highlight the current understanding of the various direct and indirect mechanisms, focusing on the role of neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2, the general pro-inflammatory state, and the pandemic-associated psychosocial stressors in the causality of ‘Cognitive COVID.’ Neurotropism is associated with various mechanisms including retrograde neuronal transmission via olfactory pathway, a general hematogenous spread, and the virus using immune cells as vectors. The high amounts of inflammation caused by COVID-19, compounded with potential intubation, are associated with a deleterious effect on the cognition as well. Finally, the pandemic’s unique psychosocial impact has raised alarm due to its possible effect on cognition. Furthermore, with surfacing reports of post-COVID-vaccination cognitive impairments after vaccines containing mRNA encoding for spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, we hypothesize their causality and ways to mitigate the risk. The potential impact on the quality of life of an individual and the fact that even a minor proportion of COVID-19 cases developing cognitive impairment could be a significant burden on already overwhelmed healthcare systems across the world make it vital to gather further evidence regarding the prevalence, presentation, correlations, and causality of these events and reevaluate our approach to accommodate early identification, management, and rehabilitation of patients exhibiting cognitive symptoms.

Schizophrenia is a major psychotic disorder affecting nearly 23.6 million people globally and greatly impacting the cognitive and social functioning of individuals. Multiple risk factors, including genetic, environmental, and epigenetic factors have been identified. However, the exact mechanism by which some factors aid in the development of schizophrenia is still uncertain. Acute and/or long-standing inflammation has been implicated as both a cause and effect of schizophrenia. Heightened immune responses have been documented in large cohorts of individuals with schizophrenia. While not completely known, multiple hypotheses, such as disruption of the blood–brain barrier, alterations in the kynurenine/tryptophan pathway, and increased microglial activation, have been presented to correlate inflammation with schizophrenic symptoms. Measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a commonly performed and inexpensive test on patients’ serum to determine levels of systemic inflammation in the body. Multiple studies have reported an elevated CRP level in different stages of schizophrenia, indicating its potential to be used as a viable biomarker in the diagnosis and monitoring of schizophrenia along with assessing treatment response to conventional and non-conventional treatment regimens. This review aims to evaluate the role of inflammation, in general, and CRP, in particular, in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia and its potential significance in diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative approaches towards schizophrenia and psychosis.

Postpartum depression (PPD) is defined as the onset of major depressive disorder in mothers, occurring during pregnancy or within 4 weeks post-delivery. With 7% of pregnancy-related death in the United States owing to mental health conditions, including PPD, and a global prevalence of 12%, PPD is a growing public health concern. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brexanolone, an exogenous analog of allopregnanolone, as the first ever drug to be specifically indicated for treating patients with PPD. This approval was preceded by an open-label study and three randomized placebo-controlled trials, each assessing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of brexanolone, using mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reduction as the primary outcome. In each randomized controlled trial, the drug was administered as an intravenous infusion given over 60 h. Enrolled participants were followed up on days 7 and 30 to evaluate the sustained effect. A statistically significant reduction in mean HAM-D score compared to placebo was observed in all three studies, supporting brexanolone’s use in treating moderate-to-severe PPD. Therefore, this article attempts to briefly review the pharmacology of brexanolone, evaluate the latest available clinical data and outcomes concerning its use, reevaluate its position as a ‘breakthrough’ in managing PPD, and review the cost-related barriers to its worldwide standardized use.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccine side effects have an important role in the hesitancy of the general population toward vaccine administration. Therefore, this study was conducted to document the COVID‐19 vaccine side effects in our population.Materials and Methods: An online survey‐based, cross‐sectional study was carried out from September 1, 2021, to October 1, 2021, to document the side effects of the COVID‐19 vaccine among the general public. The questionnaire included participants’ sociodemographic data, type of vaccine, comorbidities, previous COVID‐19 infection, and assessment of side effects reported by them.Results: The majority of the participants were <20 years of age (62.2%), females (74.9%), belonged to the educational sector (58.1%), residents of Sindh (65.7%), and were previously unaffected by COVID‐19 infection (73.3%). Sinovac (38.7%) followed by Sinopharm (30.4%) and Moderna (18.4%) were administered more frequently. Commonly reported side effects were injection site pain (82%), myalgia (55%), headache (46%), fatigue/malaise (45%), and fever (41%). Vaccine side effects were more likely to be reported with the first dose as compared to the second dose. On regression analysis, factors associated with occurrence of side effects included younger age (odds ratio [OR]: 6.000 [2.065–17.431], p < 0.001), female gender (OR: 2.373 [1.146–4.914], p = 0.020), marital status (OR: 0.217 [0.085–0.556], p < 0.001), graduate level of education (OR: 0.353 [0.153–0.816], p = 0.015), and occupation being either retired, freelancers, or social workers (OR: 0.310 [0.106–0.909]), p = 0.033). Previous infection with COVID‐19 (p = 0.458) and comorbidities were found unrelated (p = 0.707) to the occurrence of side effects.Conclusion: The overall prevalence of local side effects was quite higher than the systemic ones. Further large‐scale studies on vaccine safety are required to strengthen public confidence in the vaccination drive.

Despite being the largest province in Pakistan due to inadequate and underdeveloped infrastructure, Balochistan has been the worst-inflicted region with biblical floods. Following these disastrous flash floods, a sudden rise in cholera cases was seen in the affected province. To overcome this public health crisis, the authorities must put in place a system to ensure food safety, an adequate supply of clean drinking water, and the provision of proper sanitation facilities for the locals.