Background The temporal evolution of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness (VE) against infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 is incompletely defined. The temporal evolution of VE could be dependent on age, vaccine types, variants of the virus, and geographic region. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the duration of VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched and studies were selected. Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with the outcome of interest. Independent reviewers extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence. Primary outcomes included VE as a function of time against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Results Eighteen studies were included representing nearly 7 million individuals. VE against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 83% in the first month after completion of the original vaccination series to 22% at 5 months or longer. Similarly, VE against symptomatic COVID-19 declined from 94% in the first month after vaccination to 64% by the fourth month. VE against severe COVID-19 for all ages was high overall, with the level being 90% (95% CI, 87–92%) at five months or longer after being fully vaccinated. VE against severe COVID-19 was lower in individuals ≥ 65 years and those who received Ad26.COV2.S. Conclusions VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 waned over time but protection remained high against severe COVID-19. These data can be used to inform public health decisions around the need for booster vaccination.

BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the incidence of myocarditis in COVID-19 vaccines and in severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection groups.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022, for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 infection and vaccines on rates of myocarditis by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of sex and age on the incidence of myocarditis.ResultsWe identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38–56), and 49% (IQR: 43 to 52%) were men. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis (in both vaccination and COVID-19 cohort) 1.07% were hospitalized and 0.015% died. The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group [RR: 15 (95% CI: 11.09–19.81, infection group] and RR: 2 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65, vaccine group). Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39–87%) were men. Meta-regression analysis indicated that men and younger populations had a higher risk of myocarditis. A slow decline in the rates of myocarditis was observed as a function of time from vaccination. The risk of bias was low.ConclusionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations.

Context There is no consensus on the correlation between clinical experience and accuracy in diagnosing somatic dysfunctions, which makes it difficult to justify the use of more subjective measures to evaluate this important association. To better understand this relationship, palpatory forces can be observed while diagnosing a somatic dysfunction. Objective To quantify the pressure applied in diagnosing lumbar somatic dysfunction, find a correlation between accuracy of diagnosis and palpation pressure, set the standards for palpation, and develop precise palpatory skills for osteopathic medical students. Methods The palpatory forces were evaluated between participants with varying experience levels (osteopathic medical students and attending physicians from the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine). Two osteopathic physicians confirmed an L5 somatic dysfunction diagnosis in a volunteer standardized patient (SP), who served as the control. Participants then palpated the lumbar segment of the SP in a prone position with F-Scan System (TekScan) sensors, which recorded the amount of pressure and time used to reach a full diagnosis. Results Participants (11 osteopathic medical students and 10 attending physicians) who diagnosed an L5 somatic dysfunction consistent with the SP's diagnosis had less of a difference in peak force (mean [SD] difference, 62.50 [325.7] g/cm2) between the contact points (right hand vs left hand). In contrast, participants with a dissimilar L5 diagnosis from the SP's had a mean (SD) difference in peak force of 319.38 (703.1) g/cm2. Similarly, the difference in the mean (SD) force of palpation between the contact points was lower in participants who made the correct diagnosis (16.81 [117.4] g/cm2) vs those who made an incorrect diagnosis (123.92 [210.3] g/cm2). No statistical significance was found between the diagnostic accuracy of the students and physicians (P=.387) or the time taken to reach a diagnosis (P=.199). Conclusion We observed that using equal pressures in both hands while palpating a lumbar segment correlates to more accurate somatic dysfunction diagnoses.

No abstract

Background Corticosteroids confer a survival benefit in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 that require oxygen. This meta-analysis seeks to determine the duration of corticosteroids needed to optimize this mortality benefit. Methods Electronic databases were searched to March 9, 2022, for studies reporting corticosteroid versus no corticosteroid treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We estimated the effect of corticosteroids on mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses and meta-analyses were conducted to assess the optimal duration of corticosteroid treatment while adjusting for the severity of disease, age, duration of symptoms, and proportion of control group given steroids. Results We identified 27 eligible studies consisting of 13,404 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Seven randomized controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis of mortality, which suggested a protective association with corticosteroid therapy (risk ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58; 0.87). Pooled analysis of 18 studies showed the greatest survival benefit for a treatment duration up to 6 days (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39; 0.74). Survival benefit was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51; 0.83) up to 7 days, and no additional survival benefit was observed beyond 7 days of treatment (risk ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44; 0.93). The survival benefit was not confounded by severity of disease, age, duration of symptoms or proportion of control group given steroids. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, optimal duration of corticosteroid treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients was up to 6 days, with no additional survival benefit with > 7 days of treatment.

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) can save lives from fatal tachyarrhythmias. In rare cases, these devices can fail or malfunction. We present a case of a patient that suffered from 25 inappropriate shocks and 22 episodes of antitachycardia pacing (ATP), secondary to a probable non-traumatic dual lead fracture. One episode of ATP induced an R-on-T phenomenon, causing monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in the patient. The inappropriately functioning ICD also required two magnets to be placed on the patient's chest in the emergency department to convert the device to an asynchronous mode. An unexpected case of this magnitude and in such a brief timeframe has not been reported in prior ICD studies.

Introduction: COVID-19 infection and vaccines are associated with acute myocarditis. However, the relative risk of myocarditis is not fully characterized. The aim of this study is to compare the risk ratio (RR) of myocarditis in COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection groups and to delineate the effect modifiers. Hypothesis: Risk ratio of myocarditis is higher in the infection group than in the vaccinated group, and this risk is modified by age and sex. Methods: Multiple electronic databases and trial registries were searched to April 2022, for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 infection and vaccines on rates of myocarditis by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of sex and age on the incidence of myocarditis. Results: 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million in the vaccinated cohort and 2.5 million in the infection cohort were included. Median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38-56), and 49% (IQR: 43% to 52%) were male. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis, 3.48% were hospitalized and 0.05% died. The RR for myocarditis in the infection group was15 (95% CI: 11.09 - 19.81) and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65) in the vaccine group. Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39% -87%) were male. Meta-regression analysis indicated that male sex and young age were associated with myocarditis. Risk of bias assessment was moderate. Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of incident myocarditis is about 7 times higher in persons who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus than in those who received the vaccine.