A study protocol for a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of carrageenan nasal and throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis-ICE-COVID.

INTRODUCTION: At present, vaccines form the only mode of prophylaxis against COVID-19. The time needed to achieve mass global vaccination and the emergence of new variants warrants continued research into other COVID-19 prevention strategies. The severity of COVID-19 infection is thought to be associated with the initial viral load, and for infection to occur, viruses including SARS-CoV-2 must first penetrate the respiratory mucus and attach to the host cell surface receptors. Carrageenan, a sulphated polysaccharide extracted from red edible seaweed, has shown efficacy against a wide range of viruses in clinical trials through the prevention of viral entry into respiratory host cells. Carrageenan has also demonstrated in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-centre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III trial was designed. Participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation to either the treatment arm, verum Coldamaris plus (1.2 mg iota-carrageenan (Carragelose®), 0.4 mg kappa-carrageenan, 0.5% sodium chloride and purified water), or placebo arm, Coldamaris sine (0.5% sodium chloride) spray applied daily to their nose and throat for 8 weeks, while completing a daily symptom tracker questionnaire for a total of 10 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Acquisition of COVID-19 infection as confirmed by a positive PCR swab taken at symptom onset or seroconversion during the study. Secondary outcomes include symptom type, severity and duration, subsequent familial/household COVID-19 infection and infection with non-COVID-19 upper respiratory tract infections. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: This is a single-centre, phase III, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess whether carrageenan nasal and throat spray reduces the risk of development and severity of COVID-19. If proven effective, the self-administered prophylactic spray would have wider utility for key workers and the general population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04590365; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04590365. Registered on 19 October 2020.

Personal protective equipment for surgeons during COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review of availability, usage and rationing.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this article is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and WHO COVID-19 databases. Newspaper and internet article sources were identified using Nexis. The search was complemented by bibliographic secondary linkage. The findings were analysed alongside guidelines from the WHO, Public Health England, the Royal College of Surgeons and specialty associations. RESULTS: Of a total 1329 articles identified, 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations made by the WHO regarding the use of PPE in the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved alongside emerging evidence. Medical resources including PPE have been rapidly overwhelmed. There has been a global effort to overcome this by combining the most effective use of existing PPE with innovative strategies to produce more. Practical advice on all aspects of PPE is detailed in this systematic review. CONCLUSION: Although there is a need to balance limited supplies with staff and patient safety, this should not leave surgeons treating patients with inadequate PPE.

Penetrating neck trauma and the need for surgical exploration: six-year experience within a regional trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: There has been a shift towards conservative management of penetrating neck trauma in selected patients. METHODS: A retrospective case note review of the management of penetrating neck trauma (2007-2013) was undertaken at our large teaching hospital and compared against best-evidenced practice. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were admitted over six years. The incidence of penetrating neck trauma is reducing, contrary to our belief. Most cases were knife inflicted (33 out of 63), and of these most were attempted suicide. There was a high rate of negative findings for neck explorations under general anaesthesia (18 out of 22). Only nine cases had justification for general anaesthesia exploration according to best practice. CONCLUSION: The rate of neck explorations under general anaesthesia has dramatically fallen, in line with best practice. The need for operative intervention in patients with penetration of the aerodigestive tract or a major vascular injury should be based on clinical features, and these have been shown to be reliable indicators prior to open exploration.

The impact of socio-economic deprivation on burn injury: A nine-year retrospective study of 6441 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Low socio-economic status is thought to be associated with increased burn risk, however the significance and generalisability across different populations and cultures has been questioned. METHODS: A nine-year retrospective study of burn presentations to a large teaching hospital (2005-2014) was performed to investigate the association between socio-economic status and burns. Demographic and injury data was collected via the trust 'Information portal'. The Welsh Index of Multiple: Deprivation 2011 was used to score for socio-economic status. Chi-squared test and Odds Ratios were calculated and statistical significance defined as p<0.05 throughout. RESULTS: 6441 burns were identified, with 755 (11.7%) admitted. Overall incidence rates were the highest published in the UK (0.35/1000/year) with sub group analysis showing the highest rates in under fives and males. Significant relationships between both age and burn mechanism and gender and burn mechanism (p=0.0005) were identified. Scald (67.1%) was the most common mechanism with the upper limb (48%) most commonly burned. Chi square analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between socio-economic deprivation, age and burn incidence (p≤0.0005), with a disproportionately high number of burns in patients under the age of 16 in the most deprived quintile (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.06-1.44). CONCLUSION: This study specifically highlights patients under the age of 16 living in poorer socio-economic areas as the most at risk of suffering burns receiving hospital attention. This study demonstrates burns as a significant public health issue, and the results should aid in designing specific burn prevention strategies to target high-risk groups.