Surgical training tools for dermatology trainees: porcine vs. synthetic skin for excision and repair

Since dermatologists routinely perform surgery in an outpatient setting, ensuring that dermatology trainees are provided with opportunities to develop sufficient proficiency in excisional surgery and suture technique is paramount. The objectives of this study are to assess trainee preference for silicone-based synthetic skin compared with porcine skin as a surgical training medium and to assess the ability of trainees to successfully demonstrate basic surgical skills using the simulated skin model. Participants were a convenience sample of dermatology residents from the greater Chicago area, who were asked to perform an elliptical excision and bilayered repair on a silicone-based synthetic skin model. Residents were then surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the model. Four blinded dermatologist raters evaluated digital photographs obtained during the performance of the procedures and graded the execution of each maneuver using a surgical task checklist. Nineteen residents were enrolled. Residents were more likely to prefer pig skin to simulated skin for overall use (p = 0.040) and tissue repair (p = 0.018), but the nominal preference for tissue handling was nonsignificant (p = 0.086). There was no significant difference between satisfaction with pig skin versus synthetic skin with regard to excision experience (p = 0.82). The majority of residents (10/19) performed all surgical checklist tasks correctly. Of those residents who did not perform all steps correctly, many had difficulty obtaining adequate dermal eversion and wound approximation. Synthetic skin may be conveniently and safely utilized for hands-on surgical practice. Further refinement may be necessary to make synthetic skin comparable in feel and use to animal skin

Formative Process Evaluation for Implementing a Social Marketing Intervention to Increase Walking Among African Americans in the Positive Action for Today’s Health Trial

Objectives. Evaluating programs targeting physical activity may help to reduce disparate rates of obesity among African Americans. We report formative process evaluation methods and implementation dose, fidelity, and reach in the Positive Action for Today’s Health trial. Methods: We applied evaluation methods based on an ecological framework in 2 community-based police-patrolled walking programs targeting access and safety in underserved African American communities. One program also targeted social connectedness and motivation to walk using a social marketing approach. Process data were systematically collected from baseline to 12 months. Results: Adequate implementation dose was achieved, with fidelity achieved but less stable in both programs. Monthly walkers increased to 424 in the walking-plus-social marketing program, indicating expanding program reach, in contrast to no increase in the walking-only program. Increased reach was correlated with peer-led Pride Strides (r = .92; P < .001), a key social marketing component, and program social interaction was the primary reason for which walkers reported participating. Conclusions: Formative process evaluation demonstrated that the walking programs were effectively implemented and that social marketing increased walking and perceived social connectedness in African American communities

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health