Comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective case series

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Spinal surgery is increasingly being done in the outpatient setting. We reviewed our experience with inpatient and outpatient single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating (ACDF+P).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating between August 2005 and May 2007 by two surgeons (RPB or JAF) were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent anterior cervical microdiscectomy, arthrodesis using structural allograft, and titanium plating. A planned change from doing ACDF+P on an inpatient basis to doing ACDF+P on an outpatient basis was instituted at the midpoint of the study. There were no other changes in technique, patient selection, instrumentation, facility, or other factors. All procedures were done in full-service hospitals accommodating outpatient and inpatient care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>64 patients underwent ACDF+P as inpatients, while 45 underwent ACDF+P as outpatients. When outpatient surgery was planned, 17 patients were treated as inpatients due to medical comorbidities (14), older age (1), and patient preference (2). At a mean follow-up of 62.4 days, 90 patients had an excellent outcome, 19 patients had a good outcome, and no patients had a fair or poor outcome. There was no significant difference in outcome between inpatients and outpatients. There were 4 complications, all occurring in inpatients: a hematoma one week post-operatively requiring drainage, a cerebrospinal fluid leak treated with lumbar drainage, syncope of unknown etiology, and moderate dysphagia.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this series, outpatient ACDF+P was safe and was not associated with a significant difference in outcome compared with inpatient ACDF+P.</p

Diagnostic tools in Rhinology EAACI position paper

This EAACI Task Force document aims at providing the readers with a comprehensive and complete overview of the currently available tools for diagnosis of nasal and sino-nasal disease. We have tried to logically order the different important issues related to history taking, clinical examination and additional investigative tools for evaluation of the severity of sinonasal disease into a consensus document. A panel of European experts in the field of Rhinology has contributed to this consensus document on Diagnostic Tools in Rhinology

Harnessing the Potential of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells and Gene Editing for the Treatment of Retinal Degeneration

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A major cause of visual disorders is dysfunction and/or loss of the light-sensitive cells of the retina, the photoreceptors. To develop better treatments for patients, we need to understand how inherited retinal disease mutations result in the dysfunction of photoreceptors. New advances in the field of stem cell and gene editing research offer novel ways to model retinal dystrophies in vitro and present opportunities to translate basic biological insights into therapies. This brief review will discuss some of the issues that should be taken into account when carrying out disease modelling and gene editing of retinal cells. We will discuss (i) the use of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) for disease modelling and cell therapy; (ii) the importance of using isogenic iPSC lines as controls; (iii) CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing of iPSCs; and (iv) in vivo gene editing using AAV vectors.RECENT FINDINGS: Ground-breaking advances in differentiation of iPSCs into retinal organoids and methods to derive mature light sensitive photoreceptors from iPSCs. Furthermore, single AAV systems for in vivo gene editing have been developed which makes retinal in vivo gene editing therapy a real prospect.SUMMARY: Genome editing is becoming a valuable tool for disease modelling and in vivo gene editing in the retina.</p

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca