There is an established literature on the symptoms and complications of COVID‐19 but the after‐effects of COVID‐19 are not well understood with few studies reporting persistent symptoms and quality of life. We aim to evaluate the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life in post‐acute COVID‐19 syndrome (PCS) and conducted meta‐regression to evaluate the effects of persistent symptoms and intensive care unit (ICU) admission on the poor quality of life. We extracted data from observational studies describing persistent symptoms and quality of life in post‐COVID‐19 patients from March 10, 2020, to March 10, 2021, following PRISMA guidelines with a consensus of two independent reviewers. We calculated the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) and created forest plots using random‐effects models. A total of 12 studies with 4828 PCS patients were included. We found that amongst PCS patients, the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life (EQ‐VAS) was (59%; 95% CI: 42%–75%). Based on individual factors in the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire, the prevalence of mobility was (36, 10–67), personal care (8, 1–21), usual quality (28, 2–65), pain/discomfort (42, 28–55), and anxiety/depression (38, 19–58). The prevalence of persistent symptoms was fatigue (64, 54–73), dyspnea (39.5, 20–60), anosmia (20, 15–24), arthralgia (24.3, 14–36), headache (21, 3–47), sleep disturbances (47, 7–89), and mental health (14.5, 4–29). Meta‐regression analysis showed the poor quality of life was significantly higher among post‐COVID‐19 patients with ICU admission (p = 0.004) and fatigue (p = 0.0015). Our study concludes that PCS is associated with poor quality of life, persistent symptoms including fatigue, dyspnea, anosmia, sleep disturbances, and worse mental health. This suggests that we need more research on PCS patients to understand the risk factors causing it and eventually leading to poor quality of life.

Objective To evaluate association between biomarkers and outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalised patients. COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge. Biomarkers have always played an important role in clinical decision making in various infectious diseases. It is crucial to assess the role of biomarkers in evaluating severity of disease and appropriate allocation of resources. Design and setting Systematic review and meta-analysis. English full text observational studies describing the laboratory findings and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalised patients were identified searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, medRxiv using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV from 1 December 2019 to 15 August 2020 following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Participants Studies having biomarkers, including lymphocyte, platelets, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, procalcitonin (PCT) and creatine kinase (CK), and describing outcomes were selected with the consensus of three independent reviewers. Main outcome measures Composite poor outcomes include intensive care unit admission, oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation utilisation, severe disease, in-hospital admission and mortality. The OR and 95% CI were obtained and forest plots were created using random-effects models. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by sensitivity analysis. Results 32 studies with 10 491 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. We found that lymphopenia (pooled-OR: 3.33 (95% CI: 2.51–4.41); p<0.00001), thrombocytopenia (2.36 (1.64–3.40); p<0.00001), elevated D-dimer (3.39 (2.66–4.33); p<0.00001), elevated CRP (4.37 (3.37–5.68); p<0.00001), elevated PCT (6.33 (4.24–9.45); p<0.00001), elevated CK (2.42 (1.35–4.32); p=0.003), elevated AST (2.75 (2.30–3.29); p<0.00001), elevated ALT (1.71 (1.32–2.20); p<0.00001), elevated creatinine (2.84 (1.80–4.46); p<0.00001) and LDH (5.48 (3.89–7.71); p<0.00001) were independently associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. Conclusion Our study found a significant association between lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of CRP, PCT, LDH, D-dimer and COVID-19 severity. The results have the potential to be used as an early biomarker to improve the management of COVID-19 patients, by identification of high-risk patients and appropriate allocation of healthcare resources in the pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a challenge globally. In severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic 60% of patients had hepatic injury, due to phylogenetic similarities of the viruses it is assumed that COVID-19 is associated with acute liver injury. In this meta-analysis, we aim to study the occurrence and association of liver injury, comorbid liver disease and elevated liver enzymes in COVID-19 confirmed hospitalizations with outcomes. Data from observational studies describing comorbid chronic liver disease, acute liver injury, elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients from December 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020 was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Adverse outcomes were defined as admission to intensive care unit (ICU), oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), severe disease and in-hospital mortality. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were obtained. 24 studies with 12,882 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Overall prevalence of CM-CLD was 2.6%, COVID-19-ALI was 26.5%, elevated AST was 41.1% and elevated ALT was 29.1%. CM-CLD had no significant association with poor outcomes (pooled OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.71–1.29; p = 0.78). COVID-19-ALI (1.68;1.04–2.70; p = 0.03), elevated AST (2.98; 2.35–3.77; p < 0.00001) and elevated ALT (1.85;1.49–2.29; p < 0.00001) were significantly associated with higher odds of poor outcomes. Our meta-analysis suggests that acute liver injury and elevated liver enzymes were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity. Future studies should evaluate changing levels of biomarkers amongst liver disease patients to predict poor outcomes of COVID-19 and causes of liver injury during COVID-19 infection.

In rural and underserved areas, there are restrictions in healthcare due to the lack of availability of neurologists; patients have to travel long distances to receive the required care. Considering the fact that neurological conditions have large mortality and disability rates, there is a need for innovative services like tele-neurology. It is an important tool in improving the health and quality of life by using different ways of communication between neurologists and patients, or neurologists and other providers. We examine the current types of facilities available in tele-neurology, as well as outcomes, barriers, limitations, legal litigations, and the multidisciplinary nature based on prior studies. We have also suggested recommendations for the future of tele-neurology including effective-accessibility and inexpensive-utilization in developing countries. There are various tele-health programs created by The Veterans Health Administration including a clinical video tele-health (CVT) system. This system allows direct patient care of veterans by neurologists. The University of South Carolina implemented a web-based tele-stroke program in which acute ischemic stroke patients were treated in the Emergency Department (ED) of rural hospitals by neurologists, after consulting with rural ED physicians. With growing technology and popularity of tele-neurology, there are now international collaborative efforts in tele-medicine that are looking to be adapted to tele-neurology. Thus, tele-neurology can provide quality neurological care with patient satisfaction, as well as time and cost savings. The tele-stroke group established by TRUST-tPA trial (Therapeutic Trial Evaluating Efficacy of Telemedicine (TELESTROKE) of Patients With Acute Stroke) has 10 community hospital-emergency rooms that were connected to a stroke center. It was found that tele-stroke is appropriate in places where there is no way for a patient to access a stroke unit within a 4.5-hour time window. Like other tele-neurology subtypes, tele-epilepsy and pediatric tele-neurology also offer more follow-up care to people of remote areas which have limited access. There are other subtypes like mental health, chronic neurological care, and hospitalist which are very effective in improving outcome and quality of life of people living in remote areas. Tele-neurology has effectively reduced travel costs and times; there is high patient satisfaction and reduced disparity for general and specialized neurological care. But there are certain limitations like large equipment costs, certain bandwidth requirement, and trained staff to use the equipment. Transmission of patient information using public internet raises the concern of legality. There should be sufficient encryption to satisfy the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements to ensure patient confidentiality and safety of personal data. The adaptation of tele-neurology is a powerful and innovative way to enhance healthcare in areas with a shortage of specialists. Implementation of this tool is limited due to cost burden, lack of expertise to implement necessary technology, legal litigations, and suitable financial and professional incentives for the users. This review focuses on the trajectory of utilization and the issues to be addressed in order to provide the full benefits of tele-neurology to undeserved communities in the future.