The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 100 million people globally within the first year of the pandemic. With a death toll surpassing 500,000 in the United States alone, containing the pandemic is predicated on achieving herd immunity on a global scale. This implies that at least 70-80 % of the population must achieve active immunity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), either as a result of a previous COVID-19 infection or by vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. In December 2020, the first two vaccines were approved by the FDA through emergency use authorization in the United States. These vaccines are based on the mRNA vaccine platform and were developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. Published safety and efficacy trials reported high efficacy rates of 94-95 % after two interval doses, in conjunction with limited side effects and a low rate of adverse reactions. The rapid pace of vaccine development and the uncertainty of potential long-term adverse effects raised some level of hesitation against mRNA vaccines in the global community. A successful vaccination campaign is contingent on widespread access to the vaccine under appropriate storage conditions, deployment of a sufficient number of vaccinators, and the willingness of the population to be vaccinated. Thus, it is important to clarify the objective data related to vaccine safety, including known side effects and potential adverse reactions. The present review was designed to provide an update on the current state of science related to the safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

Following publication of the original article [1], it was noticed that the published version of this article has contained incorrect title. The correct title is "The safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines: a review". The original article has been corrected.

Surgical patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are vulnerable to increased perioperative complications and postoperative mortality, independent of the risk for contracting COVID-19 pneumonia after endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. The presumed root cause of postoperative infections, microvascular soft tissue injuries and thromboembolic complications is largely attributed to the profound immune dysfunction induced by COVID-19 as a result of complement activation and the “cytokine storm”. The empirical therapy with anti-inflammatory agents has been shown to attenuate some of the adverse effects of systemic hyperinflammation in COVID-19 patients. In addition, the proactive concept of “immunonutrition” may represent a new promising avenue for mitigating the complex immune dysregulation in COVID-19 and thereby reduce the rates of surgical complications and postoperative mortality. This letter provides a narrative summary of the current state-of-the-art in the field of immunonutrition as it pertains to surgical patient safety in COVID-19 patients.

Background Bone adhesives have been on the forefront of orthopedic surgery research for decades due to the potential benefit they may have in fracture management. Current publications and research being conducted on bone adhesive could be applied to our current hypothesis for the benefit of a novel minimally invasive treatment option for a select cohort of fractures, Jones fractures. The select fracture’s gold standard of treatment would be nonoperative, but with risk of complications including nonunion and delayed union. Presentation of hypothesis We hypothesize that percutaneous application of bone adhesive will provide an additional treatment option for fracture patterns that do not require operative fixation, but would benefit from additional stability. The primary outcome measures would be (1) duration of time required for bony consolidation (defined as 3 of 4 bridging cortices) and (2) duration of absenteeism (inability to work), and pain levels within the first week after the procedure. Secondary outcome measures would be the incidence of nonunion or delayed union. We hypothesize that the select bone adhesive would accelerate bony consolidation, decrease absenteeism, decrease pain levels within the first week after procedure, and decrease the incidence of delayed union and/or nonunion. Testing of hypothesis We propose a prospective multicenter, randomized, and open label trial clinical trial to test the bone adhesive via percutaneous injection into acute non-displaced or minimally displaced Jones fractures. Implications of hypothesis Bone adhesives are a new frontier in treatment of fractures, currently in laboratory and animal testing phases. The appropriate bone adhesive formula has not been approved for clinical trial use, but the implications of the bone adhesive may go beyond decreased complications and ease of stabilizing a select cohort of closed fractures. With the injectable compound illustrated (Fig. 1), the adhesive could be applied percutaneously in hopes of achieving improved outcomes compared to non-operative treatment. The overall goal of the clinical trial is to provide patients a safe treatment option for improved bone union rates of nonoperative fractures compared to the current gold standard management of the same fracture with earlier pain control, early bony consolidation and lower risk of delayed union/nonunion. The ideal patient population for use of a percutaneous bone adhesive in future studies would be for those with multiple medical comorbidities for whom surgical risks outweigh the benefits, in addition to patients at high risk for nonunion based on fracture pattern or systemic biology.

No abstract

Background The early surge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a significant clinical challenge due to the high case-fatality rate in absence of evidence-based recommendations. The empirical treatment modalities were relegated to historical expertise from the traditional management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in conjunction with off-label pharmaceutical agents endorsed under the “emergency use authorization” (EUA) paradigm by regulatory agencies. This study was designed to evaluate the insights from the “fail-and-learn” strategy in 2020 before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and access to reliable insights from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Methods A retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched, case-control study was performed on a data registry comprising 186 hospitals from a national health care system in the United States, designed to investigate the efficacy of empirical treatment modalities during the early surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Reflective of the time-windows of the initial two surges of the pandemic in 2020, patients were stratified into “Early 2020” (March 1–June 30) versus “Late 2020” (July 1–December 31) study cohorts. Logistic regression was applied to determine the efficacy of prevalent medications (remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, tocilizumab) and supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation) on patient outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Group comparisons were adjusted for covariates related to age, gender, ethnicity, body weight, comorbidities, and treatment modalities pertinent to organ failure replacement. Results From a total of 87,788 patients in the multicenter data registry screened in this study, 9,638 patients were included who received 19,763 COVID-19 medications during the first two waves of the 2020 pandemic. The results showed a minimal, yet statistically significant, association with hydroxychloroquine in “Early 2020” and remdesivir in “Late 2020” with reduced odds of mortality (odds ratios 0.72 and 0.76, respectively; P = 0.01). Azithromycin was the only medication associated with decreased odds of mortality during both study time-windows (odds ratios 0.79 and 0.68, respectively; P < 0.01). In contrast, the necessity for oxygen supply showed significantly increased odds of mortality beyond the effect of all investigated medications. Of all the covariates associated with increased mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation had the highest odds ratios of 8.34 in the first surge and 9.46 in in the second surge of the pandemic (P < 0.01). Conclusion This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study on 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during revealed that the necessity for invasive ventilation had the highest odds of mortality, beyond the variable effects observed by administration of the prevalent EUA-approved investigational drugs during the first two surges of the early 2020 pandemic in the United States.

Background: The early surge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a significant clinical challenge due to the high case-fatality rate in absence of evidence-based treatment recommendations. The empirical modalities were relegated to historical expertise from the traditional management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in conjunction with off-label pharmaceutical agents endorsed under the “emergency use authorization” paradigm by regulatory agencies. This study was designed to evaluate the insights from the “fail-and-learn” strategy in 2020 before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and access to reliable insights from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched, case-control study was performed on a data registry comprising 186 hospitals from a national health care system in the United States, designed to investigate the efficacy of empirical treatment modalities during the early surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Reflective of the time-windows of the initial two surges of the pandemic in 2020, patients were stratified into “early” (March 1–June 30) versus “late” (July 1–December 31) study cohorts. Logistic regression was applied to determine the efficacy of prevalent medications (remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, tocilizumab) and supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation) on patient outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Group comparisons were adjusted for covariates related to age, gender, ethnicity, body weight, comorbidities, and treatment modalities pertinent to organ failure replacement. Results: From a total of 87,788 patients in the multicenter data registry screened in this study, 9,638 patients were included who received 19,763 COVID-19 medications during the first two waves of the 2020 pandemic.The results showed inconclusive variable results pertinent to the impact of empirical medications on patient outcomes. In contrast, the necessity for oxygen supply showed significantly increased odds of mortality beyond the effect of the investigational medications. Of all the covariates associated with increased mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation had the highest odds ratios of 8.34 in the first surge and 9.46 in in the second surge of the pandemic (P<0.01). Conclusion: This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study on 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during revealed that the necessity for invasive ventilation had the highest odds of mortality, beyond the variable effects observed by administration of the prevalent EUA-approved investigational drugs during the first two surges of the early 2020 pandemic in the United States.

No abstract