Background: and Purpose Recent studies suggested an increased incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the volume of CVT hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of 171 stroke centers from 49 countries. We recorded COVID-19 admission volumes, CVT hospitalization, and CVT in-hospital mortality from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. CVT diagnoses were identified by International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes or stroke databases. We additionally sought to compare the same metrics in the first 5 months of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019 and 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04934020). Results: There were 2,313 CVT admissions across the 1-year pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic year (2020); no differences in CVT volume or CVT mortality were observed. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT volumes compared to 2019 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.2 to 32.0; P<0.0001) and 2020 (41.4%; 95% CI, 37.0 to 46.0; P<0.0001). A COVID-19 diagnosis was present in 7.6% (132/1,738) of CVT hospitalizations. CVT was present in 0.04% (103/292,080) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. During the first pandemic year, CVT mortality was higher in patients who were COVID positive compared to COVID negative patients (8/53 [15.0%] vs. 41/910 [4.5%], P=0.004). There was an increase in CVT mortality during the first 5 months of pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to the first 5 months of the pre-pandemic year 2019 (2019 vs. 2020: 2.26% vs. 4.74%, P=0.05; 2019 vs. 2021: 2.26% vs. 4.99%, P=0.03). In the first 5 months of 2021, there were 26 cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), resulting in six deaths. Conclusions During the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVT hospitalization volume and CVT in-hospital mortality did not change compared to the prior year. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher CVT in-hospital mortality. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT hospitalization volume and increase in CVT-related mortality, partially attributable to VITT.

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of generic direct-acting antiviral treatments for chronic hepatitis C in Vietnam. Methods: The medical records of 522 patients (median 45 years; Female, 25.3%) with chronic hepatitis C treated at a tertiary hospital in northern Vietnam in 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Female patients were significantly older than male patients (median 52, IQR 41-59 vs. 43 years, IQR: 39-55; P<0.001). Among 522 patients, 49.4% were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 6, followed by 1a (19.0%), 1b (13.0%), and 3 (5.9%). Coinfection with hepatitis B virus or human immunodeficiency virus was noted in 5.8% and 3.1% of patients, respectively. Patients were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (70.9%), sofosbuvir/pegylated-interferon + ribavirin (13.2%), daclatasvir/ sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (12.5%), or sofosbuvir/ribavirin (3.4%), and 96.4% (n=503) completed the direct-acting antiviral treatment. No patient discontinued treatment due to adverse event(s). A sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of the treatment (SVR12) was evaluated in 62.6% of patients. Overall sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of the treatment was 98.7% regardless of HCV genotypes or direct-acting antiviral regimens. The severity of liver stiffness was significantly decreased from 10.2 to 6.3 kilopascals measured by transient elastography by the treatment (P<0.001). Among patients who completed the directacting antiviral treatment, 17.7% returned for further follow-ups after SVR12. Conclusions: In Vietnam, the current generic direct-acting antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C was effective regardless of HCV genotypes and direct-acting antiviral regimens with the attenuation of liver stiffness. It is feasible to implement direct-acting antiviral treatment to cure chronic hepatitis C patients at any liver fibrosis stages in Vietnam.

This article describes Viet Nam Ministry of Health’s (VMoH) activities to prepare for and respond to the threat Zika virus (ZIKV), including the adaptation of existing surveillance systems to encompass ZIKV surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Candidate characteristics for hand surgery fellowship training remains unknown, as very little data is available in the literature. This study aims to provide information on the criteria that are employed to select candidates for the hand surgery fellowship match. METHODS: A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognized hand surgery fellowship program directors (n=81) involved in the U.S. match. The survey investigated factors used for the selection of applicants, including medical school, residency training, research experience, fellowship interview, and candidate characteristics. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 factors from “not at all important” (1) to “essential in making my decision” (5); or for five controversial factors from “very negative impact” (1) to “very positive impact in making my decision” (5). RESULTS: A total of 52% (42 out of 81) of responses were received from hand surgery fellowship program directors. The most important influential factors were interactions with faculty during interview and visit (4.6±0.6), interpersonal skills (4.6±0.5), overall interview performance in the selection process (4.6±0.6), professionalism and ethics (4.6±0.7), and letters of recommendation from hand surgeons (4.5±0.7). Factors that have a negative impact on the selection process include visa requirement (2.1±1.2), graduate of non-plastic surgery residency program (2.4±1.3), and graduate of a foreign medical school (2.4±1.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data on hand surgery fellowship directors' perception on the criteria important for fellowship applicant selection, and showed that interview-related criteria and letters of recommendation are the important factors.
Accreditation ; Education, Medical, Graduate ; Ethics ; Fellowships and Scholarships* ; Hand* ; Internship and Residency ; Patient Selection* ; Professionalism ; Schools, Medical ; Social Skills ; Surgeons ; Surgery, Plastic

BACKGROUND: Candidate characteristics for hand surgery fellowship training remains unknown, as very little data is available in the literature. This study aims to provide information on the criteria that are employed to select candidates for the hand surgery fellowship match. METHODS: A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognized hand surgery fellowship program directors (n=81) involved in the U.S. match. The survey investigated factors used for the selection of applicants, including medical school, residency training, research experience, fellowship interview, and candidate characteristics. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 factors from “not at all important” (1) to “essential in making my decision” (5); or for five controversial factors from “very negative impact” (1) to “very positive impact in making my decision” (5). RESULTS: A total of 52% (42 out of 81) of responses were received from hand surgery fellowship program directors. The most important influential factors were interactions with faculty during interview and visit (4.6±0.6), interpersonal skills (4.6±0.5), overall interview performance in the selection process (4.6±0.6), professionalism and ethics (4.6±0.7), and letters of recommendation from hand surgeons (4.5±0.7). Factors that have a negative impact on the selection process include visa requirement (2.1±1.2), graduate of non-plastic surgery residency program (2.4±1.3), and graduate of a foreign medical school (2.4±1.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data on hand surgery fellowship directors' perception on the criteria important for fellowship applicant selection, and showed that interview-related criteria and letters of recommendation are the important factors.
Accreditation ; Education, Medical, Graduate ; Ethics ; Fellowships and Scholarships* ; Hand* ; Internship and Residency ; Patient Selection* ; Professionalism ; Schools, Medical ; Social Skills ; Surgeons ; Surgery, Plastic