The spleen is an intraperitoneal organ that performs vital hematological and immunological functions. It maintains both innate and adaptive immunity and protects the body from microbial infections. The removal of the spleen as a treatment method was initiated from the early 1500s for traumatic injuries, even before the physiology of spleen was properly understood. Splenectomy has therapeutic effects in many conditions such as sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), Hodgkin’s disease, and lymphoma. However, it increases the risk of infections and, in some cases, can lead to a case of severe sepsis known as overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), which has a very high mortality rate. Encapsulated bacteria form a major proportion of the invading organisms, of which the most common is Streptococcus pneumoniae. OPSI is a medical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis (with blood cultures and sensitivity, blood glucose levels, renal function tests, and electrolyte levels) and management with fluid resuscitation along with immediate administration of empirical antimicrobials. OPSI can be prevented by educating patients, vaccination, and antibiotic prophylaxis. This article summarizes the anatomy and physiology of the spleen and highlights its important functions. It primarily focuses on the pathophysiology of OPSI, its current management, and prevention strategies.

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has put an excessive strain on healthcare systems across the globe, causing a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE is a precious commodity for health personnel to protect them against infections. We investigated the availability of PPE among doctors in the United States (US) and Pakistan. Methods A cross-sectional study, including doctors from the US and Pakistan, was carried out from April 8 to May 5, 2020. An online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to doctors working in hospitals in the US and Pakistan after a small pilot study. All analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results After informed consent, 574 doctors (60.6% from Pakistan and 39.4% from the US) were included in the analysis. The majority of the participants were females (53.3%), and the mean age of the participants was 35.3 +/- 10.3 years. Most doctors (47.7%) were from medicine and allied fields. Among the participants, 87.6% of doctors from the US reported having access to masks/N95 respirators, 79.6% to gloves, 77.9% to face-shields or goggles, and 50.4% to fullsuit/gown. Whereas, doctors in Pakistan reported to have poor availability of PPE with only 37.4% having access to masks/N95 respirator, 34.5% to gloves, 13.8% to face-shields or goggles, and 12.9% to full-suit/gown. The reuse of PPE was reported by 80.5% and 60.3% physicians from the US and Pakistan, respectively. More doctors from Pakistan (50.6%) reported that they had been forced to work without PPE compared to doctors in the US (7.1%). Conclusion There is a lack of different forms of PPE in the US and Pakistan. Doctors from both countries reported that they had been forced to work without PPE. Compared to the US, more doctors from Pakistan reported having faced discrimination in receiving PPE.

Hand hygiene is the cardinal step in combating various healthcare-associated infections. These infections are a cause of 37,000 deaths in Europe and 100,000 deaths in the United States annually. Thus, prevention of their spread is of utmost importance today. A study conducted in a tertiary care center in Karachi found that 17% of the medical professionals were aware of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on hand hygiene while only 4.9% followed these hand-washing techniques. Lack of hand hygiene practice and awareness has raised a need to reassess infection control in hospitals. There is currently undisputed proof that adherence to hand cleanliness diminishes the danger of transmission of various infections. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted at Dr. Ruth K.M. Pfau Civil Hospital, Karachi in January 2019. Data from 212 participants who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. A three-part questionnaire was used for the hospital staff who had been present at the hospital for at least six hours and had attended to the patients during the last three continuous working days. Staff members who visited the hospital but did not attend to any patients or those who had been present at the hospital for less than six hours were excluded. Collected data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). A total of 212 individuals (74 doctors, 66 nurses, 52 technicians, and 20 ward assistants) agreed to participate in our study, of which 124 were females. The compliance with hand disinfectant use before and after every patient contact was found to be 12.3%. The use of disinfectant was found to be more among males than females (mean 7.88 times for males vs. 6.20 for females) and the younger individuals were more compliant with hand hygiene practices; 62.73% of participants were aware of the WHO guidelines regarding hand hygiene and 65.56% were aware of hospital-acquired infections. However, nearly half of the participants (45.75%) had never attended a formal lecture on the subject and more than half (62.26%) of the participants were unenlightened about the complications of hospital-acquired infections. Hand hygiene is a basic requirement for every medic and paramedic in a hospital setting today. Keeping in mind the drastic consequences of the spread of hospital-associated infections, it is evident that hand hygiene should be stressed upon. The rising incidence of nosocomial infections and their complications can be prevented by raising awareness about hand hygiene practices. There is a need to further investigate the application of and adherence to the basic guidelines on hand hygiene. Our results indicate that this issue should be tackled through a multidimensional approach.

A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I²=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I²=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I²=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I²=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I²=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.

Since its origin in China, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a pandemic and spread to 209 countries. As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a very rapidly emerging disease, organ-specific studies related to it have been reported. Apart from respiratory findings, some studies have highlighted inflammatory consequences in the heart, kidney, and/or liver as well. Cardiac involvement in COVID-19 seems to be a result of an inflammatory storm in response to the infection. Moreover, direct viral invasion of cardiomyocytes, as well as a myocardial injury due to oxidative stress, may account for acute cardiac injury in COVID-19. Nevertheless, the mechanism of heart injury in COVID-19 is not clear yet. However, multiple studies that highlight the clinical features, laboratory findings, and prognosis of acute myocardial injury (AMI) in COVID-19-affected individuals have been published. In this review, we have summarized the findings of all those studies as well as the clinical features and management of cardiac injury discussed by some case reports.