Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 59
Filter
1.
Expert Rev Hematol ; 16(2): 151-156, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255302

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Compared with the general population, patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) typically have substantially reduced life expectancies. It is unclear whether SCD patients who acquire COVID-19 have higher rates of complications and mortality than the general population. We sought to elucidate COVID-19 presentation and outcomes in patients with SCD. METHODS: Using retrospective chart review, we evaluated demographic characteristics, presenting symptoms, chest imaging findings, blood transfusion requirements, need for mechanical ventilation or pressor support, medication administration (including remdesivir and dexamethasone), and survival among individuals with SCD hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2021. RESULTS: Among 72 SCD patients, increased pain was the most common presenting symptom followed by cough, fever, and dyspnea. Thirty-seven (44%) received simple transfusion and 14 (17%) underwent exchange transfusion. Lung imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 were observed in 27 (37%) patients; 21 (29%) patients were treated with remdesivir and 26 (35%) received dexamethasone. Three patients (4%) required mechanical ventilation and pressor support; all three died from COVID complications. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is the most common presenting symptom in SCD patients with COVID-19. We observed a mortality rate higher than that among the general population among patients who required mechanical ventilation and pressor support.


Subject(s)
Anemia, Sickle Cell , COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Anemia, Sickle Cell/complications , Anemia, Sickle Cell/therapy , Pain/etiology , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Delivery of Health Care
2.
Am J Case Rep ; 24: e938667, 2023 Jan 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2235460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND Herpes zoster is a condition in which there is reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), which is usually seen in the elderly and those with immunocompromised states. Recently, however, there have been many reports of herpes zoster after administration of COVID-19 vaccines, although initial trials showed that these vaccines have good safety and immunogenicity profiles. At the time of writing, about 5 billion people worldwide had received their full course of COVID-19 vaccination. This case report describes an elderly man who developed herpes zoster after receiving a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine, with no adverse effects after the first and second dose. CASE REPORT An 82-year-old man with underlying type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cerebrovascular disease presented with left-sided chest and upper back pain. The pain was intermittent, burning in nature, and disturbed his sleep. A week prior to his presentation, he received a COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) booster dose. Examination revealed multiple vesicles along his anterior and posterior T3 dermatome. He was diagnosed with herpes zoster and treated with a course of oral acyclovir. Upon review 7 days later, he had recovered well, with resolution of his vesicles and pain. CONCLUSIONS COVID-19 vaccination remains an important measure to prevent transmission of infection and to reduce the mortality and morbidity caused by it. However, healthcare practitioners should be aware of the possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and herpes zoster. Appropriate explanation and safety advice on the possible adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including herpes zoster infection, should be given to patients. This will facilitate early recognition and treatment of this condition.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Herpes Zoster , Male , Humans , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Herpesvirus 3, Human , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/etiology , Herpes Zoster/etiology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Pain/etiology , Blister/etiology
3.
Brain Stimul ; 16(1): 100-107, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2176849

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: and purpose: Fatigue is among the most common persistent symptoms following post-acute sequelae of Sars-COV-2 infection (PASC). The current study investigated the potential therapeutic effects of High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS) associated with rehabilitation program for the management of PASC-related fatigue. METHODS: Seventy patients with PASC-related fatigue were randomized to receive 3 mA or sham HD-tDCS targeting the left primary motor cortex (M1) for 30 min paired with a rehabilitation program. Each patient underwent 10 sessions (2 sessions/week) over five weeks. Fatigue was measured as the primary outcome before and after the intervention using the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Pain level, anxiety severity and quality of life were secondary outcomes assessed, respectively, through the McGill Questionnaire, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and WHOQOL. RESULTS: Active HD-tDCS resulted in significantly greater reduction in fatigue compared to sham HD-tDCS (mean group MFIS reduction of 22.11 points vs 10.34 points). Distinct effects of HD-tDCS were observed in fatigue domains with greater effect on cognitive (mean group difference 8.29 points; effect size 1.1; 95% CI 3.56-13.01; P < .0001) and psychosocial domains (mean group difference 2.37 points; effect size 1.2; 95% CI 1.34-3.40; P < .0001), with no significant difference between the groups in the physical subscale (mean group difference 0.71 points; effect size 0.1; 95% CI 4.47-5.90; P = .09). Compared to sham, the active HD-tDCS group also had a significant reduction in anxiety (mean group difference 4.88; effect size 0.9; 95% CI 1.93-7.84; P < .0001) and improvement in quality of life (mean group difference 14.80; effect size 0.7; 95% CI 7.87-21.73; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in pain (mean group difference -0.74; no effect size; 95% CI 3.66-5.14; P = .09). CONCLUSION: An intervention with M1 targeted HD-tDCS paired with a rehabilitation program was effective in reducing fatigue and anxiety, while improving quality of life in people with PASC.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation , Humans , Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Quality of Life , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , Pain/etiology , Fatigue/etiology , Fatigue/therapy , Brain/physiology
4.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 23(1): 2, 2023 01 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196047

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coughing caused by tracheal extubation is common following general anaesthesia. Heavy aerosol production by coughing during recovery from general anaesthesia in patients with respiratory infections (especially COVID-19) may be one of the highest risk factors for infection in healthcare workers. The application of local anaesthetics to the endotracheal tube is an effective method to reduce coughing. The most commonly used anaesthetics are compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream and tetracaine spray. However, coughing still occurs when the two anaesthetics are used alone. We speculated that the application of compound lidocaine/prilocaine combined with tetracaine spray would better prevent coughing caused by tracheal extubation. METHODS: Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy or cholecystectomy combined with common bile duct exploration under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to Group C (saline spray), Group L (2 g compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream contains 5 mg of lidocaine and 5 mg prilocaine)), Group T (tetracaine) and Group F (compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream combined with tetracaine). The incidence of coughing, the endotracheal tube tolerance assessment, the incidence of agitation, the active extubation rate, the incidence of postoperative pharyngeal pain and the incidence of postoperative cough were recorded and analysed. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and the plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine were measured immediately before extubation and 1 min after extubation. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were randomly assigned to Group C (53 cases), Group L (52 cases), Group T (52 cases) and Group F (54 cases). The primary result is assessment of the incidence of cough. The patients emerged from general anaesthesia, 96% of Group C had cough, which was significantly reduced in Group L (61.5%, P < 0.001), Group T (75%, P < 0.05) and Group F (22.2%, P < 0.001). Group F had a significantly reduced incidence of cough compared to Group L and Group T (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01, respectively). The secondary results were assessed. The endotracheal tube tolerance score in Group C ((1, 3) 4, P < 0.001) was higher than Group L ((0, 1) 2), Group T ((0, 1.25) 3) and Group F ((0, 0) 1). Group F had a significantly lower score than Group L and Group T (P < 0.05, P < 0.01, respectively). The incidence of agitation and the active extubation rate were also higher in Group C (96.2% and 71.7%, respectively, P < 0.001) than Group L (48.1% and 15.4%, respectively), Group T (61.5% and 26.9%, respectively) and Group F (17.3% and 7.7%, respectively). Blood pressure, HR and plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine were significantly higher in Group C than in all other groups at the time of extubation and 1 min after extubation (P < 0.001). Group F exhibited significantly reduced blood pressure, heart rate and plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine compared to Group L and Group T (P < 0.05, P < 0.01 or P < 0.001, respectively). The incidence of postoperative pharyngeal pain and the incidence of postoperative cough were not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream combined with tetracaine may be a more effective approach for preventing coughing and stabilising circulation during extubation following general anaesthesia. This may play an important role in preventing medical staff from contracting respiratory infectious diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200058429 (registration date: 09-04-2022) "retrospectively registered".


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharyngitis , Humans , Tetracaine , Airway Extubation/adverse effects , Cough/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination , Anesthetics, Local , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Prilocaine/therapeutic use , Pharyngitis/epidemiology , Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Norepinephrine , Epinephrine , Double-Blind Method , Pain/etiology
5.
J Med Life ; 15(10): 1267-1271, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2146202

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on emergencies and pain among orthodontic patients attending a teaching hospital. The study was conducted among orthodontic patients receiving active orthodontic treatment or in a retention period at the College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq. Their participation was voluntary, and they filled out an Arabic-translated questionnaire. The survey included general information, orthodontic problems, and a numerical rating scale for pain assessment. We used descriptive and inferential statistics (frequencies and intersecting frequencies), chi-square test and linear regression. Out of 75 orthodontic patients, only 54 (15 males and 39 females) were included in the study. The most encountered orthodontic problem was broken or movable bracket (55.6%), followed by long pocking wire 35.2%. In addition, 55.6% of the participants preferred to wait for the next appointment to see their orthodontist, and only 5.6% tried to treat the problem personally. There was no significant relationship between pain level, gender and age, whereas a strong significant association was found between pain intensity and orthodontic problems or emergencies. COVID-19 had a negative impact on orthodontic follow-up visits. The intensity of pain was strongly correlated with orthodontic problems or emergencies. Therefore, more attention should be given to patients, focusing on teaching them how to manage orthodontic emergencies during situations such as an outbreak.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Female , Male , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergencies , Hospitals, Teaching , Pain/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , Pain Measurement
6.
Yonsei Med J ; 63(12): 1078-1087, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141689

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 is controversial. We aimed to evaluate this association among South Korean healthcare workers (HCWs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants received two doses of the ChAdOx1vaccine 12 weeks apart. Blood samples were tested for anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein receptor binding domain antibodies about 2 months after the first and second doses using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay kits. Adverse events were noted using an online self-reporting questionnaire. RESULTS: Among the 232 HCWs, pain (85.78% after the first dose vs. 58.62% after the second dose, p<0.001) was the most prominent local reaction, and myalgia or fatigue (84.05% vs. 53.02%, p<0.001) was the most prominent systemic reaction. The frequency of all adverse events was significantly reduced after the second dose. After the first dose, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 S showed significantly higher titer in the group with swelling, itching, fever, and nausea. Also, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titer significantly increased as the grade of fever (p=0.007) and duration of fever (p=0.026) increased; however, there was no significant correlation between immunogenicity and adverse event after the second dose. The group with pain after the first dose showed a greater increase in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 S difference between the second and first doses compared to the group without pain (542.2 U/mL vs. 363.8 U/mL, p=0.037). CONCLUSION: The frequency of adverse events occurring after the first dose of the ChAdOx1 was significantly reduced after the second dose. Interestingly, the elevation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titer was significantly increased in the group with pain after the first dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel , Fever , Pain/etiology , Antibodies , Republic of Korea
7.
Rech Soins Infirm ; 149(2): 78-84, 2022.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2123939

ABSTRACT

Since its discovery, the concept of vaccination has continued to improve in order to offer better efficacy and tolerance. Local or even diffuse reactions are often reported, but no study reports results on the injection side. We carried out a prospective observational study on the COVID-19 vaccination centers of the Landes regional hospital consortium (GHT) over three weeks. A questionnaire was given after the second injection, and assessed patients’ feelings about the first injection. During this period, 2797 patients received their second injection and 2487 responded to the questionnaire, of which 2301 are usable. 81% of vaccinations were performed on the weak arm and 19% on the dominant arm. Local pain/discomfort was reported by 47% of patients on both arms, occurring the same day as the vaccination took place for half of the patients and the next day for the other half, with an average intensity of 3.3. Extensive pain/discomfort was present in 19% of patients, regardless of which arm was injected.The choice of the injected arm does not seem to have influence on pain.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Arm , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Pain/etiology , Pain/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
8.
J Int Med Res ; 50(10): 3000605221127518, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064524

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Using a prospective observational design, we assessed adverse events (AEs) after COVID-19 vaccination in Japanese patients. METHODS: Two doses of the mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX®) or BNT162b2 (COMIRNATY®) vaccine were administered to participants aged 12 to 18 years, and AEs after each dose were recorded for 14 days. Data on the duration and nature (local vs. systemic) of AEs were collected using a questionnaire. Sex-based differences in AE frequency were also analyzed. RESULTS: After the first and second doses, 152 and 135 vaccinees were enrolled, respectively. After the first dose, fever (>37.1°C) occurred in 38.9% of males and 50.0% of females, whereas local pain occurred in 89.8% and 97.7% of males and females, respectively (only SPIKEVAX® was used as the first dose). After the second dose, fever (>37.1°C) occurred in 77.8% and 82.6% of males vaccinated with COMIRNATY® and SPIKEVAX®, respectively, and 82.6% of females (all received SPIKEVAX®). The local pain rates in these groups were 80.6%, 76.3%, and 100%, respectively. After the second dose, local pain, fever (>38.1°C) and headache were significantly more common in female participants, and the median symptom duration was 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: AEs were more frequent after the second dose and in females.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Fever/etiology , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Male , Pain/etiology , RNA, Messenger , mRNA Vaccines
9.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 66(9): 1077-1082, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2063327

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain management in children is often inadequate, and the single most common painful procedure in children who are hospitalized is needle procedures. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to decrease anxiety and pain in children undergoing painful procedures primarily in children from the age of 7 years. Our aim for this study is to investigate patient satisfaction and pain reduction by using a three-dimensional VR interactive game as a distraction in 4-7 years old children during venous cannulation. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 106 children aged 4-7 years who were scheduled for venous cannulation. Patients assigned to the control group were adherent to standard of care, including topical numbing cream, positioning, and distraction in this group by games of choice on a tablet/smartphone. In the study group, children were adherent to standard of care and were distracted by an interactive VR game. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction and the procedural pain assessed by using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale; secondary outcomes were the procedural time and any adverse events. RESULTS: We found an overall high level of patient satisfaction with our regime of topical numbing cream, positioning, and distraction. The primary outcome of pain during the procedure was median 20 mm (IQR 0-40) and 20 mm (IQR 0-55) (Wong-Baker 0-100 mm) in the VR group and the control group, respectively (difference: 0 mm, 95%CI: 0-20, p = .19). No significant difference was found in procedural times. The number of adverse effects was low, with no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: VR distraction is an acceptable form of distraction for children 4-7 years old when combined with topical numbing cream and positioning during preoperative venous cannulation. No difference was found between VR- and smartphone/tablet distraction.


Subject(s)
Pain, Procedural , Virtual Reality , Catheterization , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Pain/etiology , Pain/prevention & control , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Procedural/etiology , Pain, Procedural/prevention & control
10.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol ; 44(2): e450-e452, 2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2063086

ABSTRACT

In people with sickle cell disease (SCD), oral abscesses are concerning clinical conditions and carry a high risk of postoperative sickle cell complications. We present an unusual case of a 14-year-old girl with SCD whose initial presentation of facial swelling, headaches, jaw pain, and paresthesia mimicked an odontogenic abscess. She was diagnosed with vaso-occlusive crisis in the mandibular bone and successfully managed noninvasively. This is among the youngest cases of paresthesia in the lower lip in SCD, which provided a clue that postponing invasive aspiration or biopsy was possible under empiric antibiotics and close observation.


Subject(s)
Anemia, Sickle Cell , Jaw Diseases , Abscess/diagnosis , Abscess/etiology , Adolescent , Anemia, Sickle Cell/complications , Female , Humans , Mandible , Pain/diagnosis , Pain/etiology , Paresthesia/complications
11.
JAMA ; 328(16): 1604-1615, 2022 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2058991

ABSTRACT

Importance: Some individuals experience persistent symptoms after initial symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (often referred to as Long COVID). Objective: To estimate the proportion of males and females with COVID-19, younger or older than 20 years of age, who had Long COVID symptoms in 2020 and 2021 and their Long COVID symptom duration. Design, Setting, and Participants: Bayesian meta-regression and pooling of 54 studies and 2 medical record databases with data for 1.2 million individuals (from 22 countries) who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 54 studies, 44 were published and 10 were collaborating cohorts (conducted in Austria, the Faroe Islands, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US). The participant data were derived from the 44 published studies (10 501 hospitalized individuals and 42 891 nonhospitalized individuals), the 10 collaborating cohort studies (10 526 and 1906), and the 2 US electronic medical record databases (250 928 and 846 046). Data collection spanned March 2020 to January 2022. Exposures: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of individuals with at least 1 of the 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and 2021, estimated separately for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals aged 20 years or older by sex and for both sexes of nonhospitalized individuals younger than 20 years of age. Results: A total of 1.2 million individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included (mean age, 4-66 years; males, 26%-88%). In the modeled estimates, 6.2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 2.4%-13.3%) of individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced at least 1 of the 3 Long COVID symptom clusters in 2020 and 2021, including 3.2% (95% UI, 0.6%-10.0%) for persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings, 3.7% (95% UI, 0.9%-9.6%) for ongoing respiratory problems, and 2.2% (95% UI, 0.3%-7.6%) for cognitive problems after adjusting for health status before COVID-19, comprising an estimated 51.0% (95% UI, 16.9%-92.4%), 60.4% (95% UI, 18.9%-89.1%), and 35.4% (95% UI, 9.4%-75.1%), respectively, of Long COVID cases. The Long COVID symptom clusters were more common in women aged 20 years or older (10.6% [95% UI, 4.3%-22.2%]) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection than in men aged 20 years or older (5.4% [95% UI, 2.2%-11.7%]). Both sexes younger than 20 years of age were estimated to be affected in 2.8% (95% UI, 0.9%-7.0%) of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The estimated mean Long COVID symptom cluster duration was 9.0 months (95% UI, 7.0-12.0 months) among hospitalized individuals and 4.0 months (95% UI, 3.6-4.6 months) among nonhospitalized individuals. Among individuals with Long COVID symptoms 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, an estimated 15.1% (95% UI, 10.3%-21.1%) continued to experience symptoms at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This study presents modeled estimates of the proportion of individuals with at least 1 of 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cognition Disorders , Fatigue , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Fatigue/epidemiology , Fatigue/etiology , Pain/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Syndrome , Cognition Disorders/epidemiology , Cognition Disorders/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Internationality , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Mood Disorders/epidemiology , Mood Disorders/etiology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
12.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e061627, 2022 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2042865

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine if motion control walking shoes are superior to neutral walking shoes in reducing knee pain on walking in people with lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Participant-blinded and assessor-blinded, comparative effectiveness, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: People with symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral OA from the community and our volunteer database. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either motion control or neutral shoes and advised to wear them >6 hours/day over 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in average knee pain on walking over the previous week (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity. RESULTS: We planned to recruit 110 participants (55 per arm) but ceased recruitment at 40 (n=18 motion control shoes, n=22 neutral shoes) due to COVID-19-related impacts. All 40 participants completed 6-month outcomes. There was no evidence that motion control shoes were superior to neutral shoes for the primary outcome of pain (mean between-group difference 0.4 NRS units, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7) nor for any secondary outcome. The number of participants experiencing any adverse events was similar between groups (motion control shoes: n=5, 28%; neutral shoes: n=4, 18.2%) and were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Motion control shoes were not superior to neutral shoes in improving knee pain on walking in symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral joint OA. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments in this important but under-researched knee OA subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001864213.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Humans , Osteoarthritis, Knee/complications , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain/etiology , Quality of Life , Shoes , Treatment Outcome , Walking
13.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0272729, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987160

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) against SARS-CoV-2 are common as reported by clinical trials and contemporary evidence. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the local and systemic adverse events following vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBIBP-CorV among the healthcare professionals (HCPs) of Nepal. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 606 vaccinated HCPs of Kathmandu, Nepal. Data was collected from June 15 to 30, 2021 using a self-administered online survey tool. Multiple binary logistic regression models were used to predict the adverse events according to the vaccine types and doses after adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 35.6 (13.2) years and 52% of them were female. Almost 59% of participants were vaccinated with two doses and around 54% of total of them took the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. At least one local and systemic adverse event was reported by 54% and 62% of participants after the first dose and 37% and 49% after the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and by 37% and 43% after the first dose and 42% and 36% after the second dose of BBIBP-CorV vaccine respectively. Injection site pain, swelling and tenderness at the injection site were the most frequently reported local AEFI while, fatigue, headache, fever and myalgia were the most frequently reported systemic AEFI. The logistic model demonstrated that the risk of both local and systemic adverse events was higher among the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients compared to the BBIBP-CorV vaccine. Almost 10% of individuals reported a post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection and most of them occurred after taking the first dose of vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of both the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBIBP-CorV vaccine among the HCPs of Nepal reported only mild and constitutional symptoms including injection site pain and tenderness, headache, fever, fatigue, etc. after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Headache/chemically induced , Headache/epidemiology , Humans , Immunization , Male , Nepal/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
14.
BMJ Open ; 12(7): e057394, 2022 07 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950160

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 10%-35% of COVID-19 infected patients experience post-COVID sequela. Among these sequelae, pain symptoms should not be neglected. In addition, the sequelae of COVID-19 also decrease the quality of life of these populations. However, meta-analyses that systematically evaluated post-COVID pain are sparse. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive screening will be performed by searching MEDLINE and Embase without language restriction from inception to August 2021. Cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series will be included. Case report and interventional studies will be excluded. Studies with less than 20 participants will be also excluded. We aim to investigate the prevalence of pain-related symptoms in patients after the acute phase of COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life and pain symptoms among these populations in the post-acute phase will also be evaluated. ROBINS-I tool will be used to assess the risk of bias of cohort studies. The risk of bias tool developed by Hoy et al will be used to assess the risk of bias of prevalence studies. Metaprop command in Stata will be used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pain symptoms. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models will be used to calculate the pooled relative risks. All analyses will be calculated using Stata software (V.15.0; StataCorp) ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Results of our study will be submitted to a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021272800.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pain/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Quality of Life , Research Design
15.
BMJ Sex Reprod Health ; 48(3): 185-192, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932771

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Scottish government introduced legislation during the COVID-19 outbreak to permit medical abortion at home with telemedicine. All women received an initial telephone consultation. For those choosing medical abortion, we provided self-administered medications to eligible women with pregnancies under 12 weeks' gestation. AIMS: To assess adherence to the recommended abortion drug regimen, with particular focus on the number of misoprostol doses used and the interval between mifepristone and misoprostol administration and the induction-expulsion interval. Additionally, to evaluate use of analgesia, antiemetics and antibiotics, and the side effects, pain and bleeding profile of medical abortion at home. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 663 women choosing medical abortion at home via telemedicine at an NHS abortion service in Edinburgh, Scotland between 1 April and 9 July 2020. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were completed at telephone follow-up 4 and 14 days following treatment. Outcome measures were self-reported and included use of mifepristone and misoprostol, induction-expulsion interval (time from misoprostol administration until expulsion of pregnancy), antiemetics, antibiotics, analgesia use, pain scores, rates of side effects, bleeding and preparedness for treatment. RESULTS: Among the respondents, 652/663 women (98%) answered at least one questionnaire, and 594/663 (89.6%) used both abortion medications as directed (24-72 hours between medications). The mean (SD) induction-expulsion interval was 4.3 (4.3) hours. Antiemetics were used by 611/663 (92%), 383/599 (64%) completed the course of prophylactic antibiotics, and 616/663 (93%) used analgesia, with mean (SD) worst-pain scores of 6.7 (2.2) out of 10. Regarding side effects, 510/663 (77%) experienced either nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea or headache, 101/663 (15%) experienced headache and 510/663 (77%) experienced bleeding that was heavier than a period; 554/663, (84%) felt prepared for their treatment by teleconsultation. CONCLUSION: Patients are able to correctly self-administer abortion medications following a telemedicine consultation. Further research is required to optimise pain management and gastrointestinal side effects during medical abortion.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced , Antiemetics , COVID-19 , Misoprostol , Telemedicine , Anti-Bacterial Agents , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Headache/etiology , Humans , Mifepristone/therapeutic use , Misoprostol/adverse effects , Pain/etiology , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation , Telephone
16.
J Endourol ; 36(7): 934-940, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931771

ABSTRACT

Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic continues, there is increased value in performing same-day discharge (SDD) protocols to minimize viral exposure and maintain the appropriate surgical treatment for oncologic patients. In this scenario, we performed a prospective analysis of outcomes of our patients undergoing SDD protocol after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: The SDD criteria included patients with no intraoperative complications, stable postoperative hemoglobin levels (compared with preoperative values), stable vital signs, normal urine output, ambulation with assistance and independently without dizziness, tolerance of clear liquids without nausea or vomiting, pain control with oral medication, and patient/family confidence with SDD. Patients older than 70 years, concomitant general surgery operations, multiple comorbidities, and complex procedures such as salvage surgery were excluded from our protocol. Results: Of the 101 patients who met the criteria for SDD, 73 (72%) had an effective SDD. All SDF (same day discharge failure) patients were discharged one day after surgery. Intraoperative characteristics were not statistically different with a median operative time of 92 (81-107) vs 103 (91-111) minutes for SDD and SDF, respectively. Of the 28 SDF patients, the most common reasons for staying were anesthesia-related factors of nausea (35%), drowsiness (7%), patient/caregiver preference (25%), pain (14%), labile blood pressure (7%), arrhythmia (7%), and dizziness (7%). There was no significant difference in readmission rates, complication rates, or postoperative pain scores between SDD and SDF patients. Conclusions: In our experience, SDD for patients undergoing RARP can be safely and feasibly incorporated into a clinical care pathway without increasing readmission rates. We were effective in 72% of cases because of coordinated care between anesthetics, nursing staff, and appropriate patient selection. We also believe that incorporating pre- and postoperative patient education and assurance is crucial to minimize their exposure to COVID-19 during the surgical treatment for prostate cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Robotics , Dizziness/complications , Humans , Male , Nausea/complications , Pain/etiology , Patient Discharge , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prostatectomy/methods , Referral and Consultation , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods
17.
Hematology ; 27(1): 742-744, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895708

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACTPeople with sickle cell disease (SCD) are more vulnerable to hospitalization, pneumonia, and pain following COVID-19 infection. However, given the association between the inflammatory response and vaso-occlusive crises in SCD and a case report of vaso-occlusive crises following administration of the ChAdOx1 nCov-195-7/AstraZeneca vaccine, there is concern that the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in people with SCD might provoke a vaso-occlusive crisis. To address this critical gap in knowledge, we sought to examine acute care usage for vaso-occlusive crisis and frequency and severity of side effects following COVID-19 vaccination among patients at the Montefiore Sickle Cell Center for Adults. As part of regular care, patients were asked if they had received COVID-19 vaccination and any side effects were noted. Electronic medical records were reviewed for the type of vaccine, dates received, episodes of vaso-occlusive crises within seven days of a dose, and side effects noted. The risk of average hospital utilization per week in 2019 was calculated as a baseline. We found that fewer than 1 in 10 patients presented to the hospital within seven days of vaccination and that the risk of hospital utilization was similar to the average risk in a week in 2019. Of patients who reported side effects, one reported a possible case of sensorineural hearing loss otherwise no other rare side effects, including thrombosis or death, were reported.


Subject(s)
Anemia, Sickle Cell , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Pain , Adult , Anemia, Sickle Cell/complications , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Pain/etiology , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/etiology , Vaccination/adverse effects
18.
Acta Gastroenterol Belg ; 85(2): 269-275, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1887473

ABSTRACT

Background and study aim: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of standard personal protective equipment (SPPE) reduces transmission risks during endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to assess the effect of enhanced personal protective equipment (EPPE) on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to the procedure compared with SPPE. Patients and methods: During two similar periods with three-month duration (in 2019 and in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic), electronic medical records and colonoscopy reports were investigated for sequential patients undergoing colonoscopy. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE in 2020. The patients' clinical data and information related to the procedure were collected and analyzed. Primary outcomes were the duration to intubate the cecum, total procedure duration and patient pain score at the end of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results: A total of 426 patients with colonoscopy performed were analyzed. The demographic features and indications for colonoscopy were similar for patients in both groups. The EPPE group had higher values for the parameters assessed as primary endpoints of cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time and pain at the end of the procedure compared to the SPPE group and the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: Our findings show that though the use of EPPE negatively affected colonoscopy performance and patient pain at the end of the procedure, it had no effect on the colonoscopy quality indices such as ADR, PDR and CIR.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cecum , Colonic Polyps/diagnosis , Colonoscopy/adverse effects , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans , Pain/etiology , Pain/prevention & control , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment
19.
J Obstet Gynaecol Res ; 48(7): 1561-1569, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832164

ABSTRACT

To investigate the vaccination status and adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant women in Japan, we conducted an online questionnaire survey from October 5 to November 22, 2021. The number of participants in the online survey was 6576. Of the participants, 4840 (73.6%) were vaccinated twice, and 557 (8.5%) were vaccinated once. A total of 1179 (17.9%) responders had never been vaccinated against COVID-19. The most frequent adverse reaction was local pain at the injection site. The incidence of local adverse reactions was almost identical after the first and the second vaccinations, while systemic reactions, such as fever and fatigue/malaise, and adverse reactions outside the vaccination site such as headache and arthralgia, were more frequent after the second vaccination than after the first vaccination. Regarding the obstetrical complications, uterine tension and/or contraction was observed in 1.65% of the pregnant women after the first vaccination and in 2.98% after the second vaccination, and uterine pain appeared in 1.06% of the pregnant women after the second vaccination. However, serious symptoms, such as hemorrhage, decreased fetal movement, edema, increased blood pressure, and amniorrhexis, were seen in less than 1% of vaccinated women after both the first and second vaccinations. This study clarified the characteristics of vaccination, adverse reactions, and obstetrical symptoms in pregnant women in Japan who had the COVID-19 vaccine up to the second dose. As a booster vaccination is currently underway, further study is needed to improve the management of pregnant women during the current pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Pregnant Women , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , Pregnancy , Vaccination/adverse effects
20.
J Infect Chemother ; 28(7): 934-942, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1828882

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In the current coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the messenger RNA vaccines have been shown to help protect high-risk groups from COVID-19. Among healthcare workers vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, a survey was conducted to analyze the relationship between the incidence and severity of adverse reactions after vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a prospective self-reported survey of adverse reactions among healthcare workers vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty®) in Japan. After the first and second dose of vaccine, local and systemic reactions for 8 days after vaccination were reported by volunteer participants using a website. After receiving vaccination, 374 respondents participated in this matched-pair study. RESULTS: Both the incidence and severity of adverse reactions tended to be higher after the second vaccine dose than after the first dose. However, the incidence and numeric rating scale (NRS) score of muscle and skin pain were nearly the same after the first and second doses. In a comparison by sex, women had significantly higher incidence and NRS scores for adverse reactions such as headache, skin pain, erythema, and itching. The results also showed that younger age groups had higher incidence rates and NRS scores for all adverse reactions investigated, except for muscle pain, compared with older age groups. CONCLUSION: Some adverse reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine showed gender and age differences. However, generally speaking, all side reactions disappear within a week. Therefore, these side reactions are not a significant concern in recommending vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Vaccines , Aged , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Pain/etiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL