Abdallah Elshafeey

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the largest global disease burdens. Despite guidelines and recommendations and the proven advantages of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in preventing CVD, achieving treatment targets remains disappointing. A key barrier to optimal LLT is therapy discontinuation. To be widely adopted in clinical practice, new lipid-lowering therapies must both prevent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and exhibit cost effectiveness to ensure widespread utilization by patients, physicians, and insurers. While non-statin LLTs have shown cardiovascular value, their cost effectiveness is controversial. This review highlights the LLTs that are currently widely adopted and summarizes the available evidence on their cost effectiveness.

The Omicron variant was first detected in October 2021, which evolved from the original SARS‐CoV‐2 strain and was found to possess many mutations. Immune evasion was one of the notable consequences of these mutations. Despite Omicron exhibiting increased transmissibility, the rates of hospitalizations and deaths among patients infected with this variant were substantially lower when compared to other strains. However, concluding that the Omicron variant is less severe than other variants of SARS‐CoV‐2 requires consideration of multiple factors, including the vaccination status of infected patients as well as any previous infections with other variants. This review compiled data about any reported indicators of severity in Omicron‐infected patients, including studies comparing Omicron with other variants while adjusting for confounders. A comprehensive search was conducted using different databases to target any studies about Omicron. In total, 62 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Many studies reported a significantly reduced risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for oxygenation/ventilation, and death in Omicron‐infected patients compared to patients infected with other variants, such as Delta. Some studies, however, reported comparable severity in Omicron infected patients as to other variants emphasizing a substantial risk for severe illness. Furthermore, the COVID‐19 vaccines were less effective against Omicron relative to previous lineages, except after receiving the booster dose. One study recommended vaccination during pregnancy, which may help prevent future cases of severe SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia in neonates and young infants due to the transfer of humoral response from the mother.

Since COVID‐19 took a strong hold around the globe causing considerable morbidity and mortality, a lot of effort was dedicated to manufacturing effective vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2. Many questions have since been raised surrounding the safety of the vaccines, and a lot of media attention to certain side effects. This caused a state of vaccine hesitancy that may prove problematic in the global effort to control the virus. This review was undertaken with the aim of putting together all the reported cardiovascular and haematological events post COVID‐19 vaccination in published literature and to suggest possible mechanisms to explain these rare phenomena.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has affected millions of individuals worldwide. The global scientific effort to design an effective vaccine against this virus has led to the development of several vaccine candidates. The expedited rollout of these vaccines has created some public distrust regarding the safety of these new vaccines. This review compiles clinical data from reports of diagnosed immune‐related neurological events that have occurred after COVID‐19 vaccine administration with the exception of those secondary to hematological abnormalities. A systematic literature search was performed, using several databases, to identify reports of postvaccination adverse neurological events. The search resulted in 18 studies that met our criteria. These studies included 61 patients who had received COVID‐19 vaccines and experienced at least 1 neurological adverse effect. The most common neurological event was facial nerve palsy (50% of all events). Other less frequently reported events included the reactivation of herpes zoster, Guillain‐Barre syndrome, other demyelinating diseases, and neuropathy. The underlying mechanism was hypothesized to be related to vaccine‐induced type 1 interferon production leading to decreased tolerance of the myelin sheath antigens. Other hypotheses include vaccine‐induced transient lymphopenia and immune dysregulation. Most of the reported events were time limited and resolved spontaneously. Given the rarity of reported neurological events compared to the total number of vaccines administered, and the similarity in the incidence of events between COVID‐19 vaccines and other more common vaccines, there is little evidence to support a causal relationship between COVID‐19 vaccines and adverse neurological events.

Technological innovations reach deeply into our daily lives and an emerging trend supports the use of commercial smart wearable devices to manage health. In the era of remote, decentralized and increasingly personalized patient care, catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the cardiovascular community must familiarize itself with the wearable technologies on the market and their wide range of clinical applications. In this Review, we highlight the basic engineering principles of common wearable sensors and where they can be error-prone. We also examine the role of these devices in the remote screening and diagnosis of common cardiovascular diseases, such as arrhythmias, and in the management of patients with established cardiovascular conditions, for example, heart failure. To date, challenges such as device accuracy, clinical validity, a lack of standardized regulatory policies and concerns for patient privacy are still hindering the widespread adoption of smart wearable technologies in clinical practice. We present several recommendations to navigate these challenges and propose a simple and practical ‘ABCD’ guide for clinicians, personalized to their specific practice needs, to accelerate the integration of these devices into the clinical workflow for optimal patient care.

Since the discovery of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), numerous research has been undertaken to delineate the various effects of the virus which manifests in many ways all over the body. The association between the SARS‐CoV‐2 invasion mechanism and the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) receptors, created many debates about the possible consequences of using RAAS‐modulating drugs including angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) during the pandemic. Many clinical studies were conducted to assess the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in patients who use ACEi/ARBs following the arguments claiming to discontinue these drugs as a precautionary measure. Although several studies mainly analyzed the outcomes of the disease, this review aimed to compare specific blood markers in both groups of COVID‐19 patients to gain better insight into the interaction of ACEi/ARBs with different body functions during the infection. Several databases were searched using a combination of keywords followed by screening and data extraction. Only 28 studies met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which showed no significant difference between the inflammation markers of COVID‐19 patients who used or did not use ACEi/ARBs. Interestingly, 6 studies reported lower inflammatory markers in COVID‐19 patients who used ACEi/ARBs, and 6 studies reported better outcomes among the same group. We therefore concluded that the use of ACEi/ARBs may not lead to worse prognosis of COVID‐19 and may even play a protective role against the hyperinflammatory response associated with COVID‐19.

Introduction: Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like features (NIFTP) is a recently characterized lesion with very low malignant potential. This has allowed for less aggressive management of this tumor subtype. Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) has malignant potential and requires different considerations in management. Presentation of case: A 33-year-old woman presented to our Thyroid Surgery Clinic with a left neck swelling slowly enlarging over 4 years, and recent right-sided neck pain. Neck ultrasound and fine needle aspiration for cytology found bilateral thyroid nodules, labelled as ‘follicular lesion of undetermined significance’ (FLUS). Final pathology report after total thyroidectomy identified four distinct tumors: bilateral NIFTP lesions and bilateral papillary microcarcinomas. Discussion: Management of NIFTP comprises partial or total thyroidectomy without further intervention. Management of PTC is the same but with the possible addition of radioactive ablation due to the increased malignant potential. This is the first report of bilateral NIFTP lesions and bilateral papillary microcarcinomas co-occurring together in the same patient, so management was challenging. The decision was made to give the patient low dose radioactive iodine ablation and continue monitoring. Ultrasound of the neck follow up 6 months later showed no residual thyroid tissue or local recurrence. Conclusion: Although rare, NIFTP can co-occur with PTC. Bilateral NIFTP with bilateral PTC is extremely rare. Surgeons and pathologists need to be aware of this rare entity that can co-occur in both thyroid lobes. Total thyroidectomy is the definitive treatment. Post-surgery surveillance is important and follow up needs to be watchful for any recurrence or metastasis. Highlights: