Search

Introduction: Real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates are essential to identify potential groups at higher risk of break-through infections and to guide policy. We assessed the VE of COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalization, while adjusting and stratifying for patient characteristics. Methods: We performed a test-negative case-control study in six Dutch hospitals. The study population consisted of adults eligible for COVID-19 vaccination hospitalized between May 1 and June 28, 2021 with respiratory symptoms. Cases were defined as patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the first 48 h of admission or within 14 days prior to hospital admission. Controls were patients tested negative at admission and did not have a positive test during the 2 weeks prior to hospitalization. VE was calculated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for calendar week, sex, age, comorbidity and nursing home residency. Subgroup analysis was performed for age, sex and different comorbidities. Secondary endpoints were ICU-admission and mortality. Results: 379 cases and 255 controls were included of whom 157 (18%) were vaccinated prior to admis-sion. Five cases (1%) and 40 controls (16%) were fully vaccinated (VE: 93%; 95% CI: 81 - 98), and 40 cases (11%) and 70 controls (27%) were partially vaccinated (VE: 70%; 95% CI: 50-82). A strongly protective effect of vaccination was found in all comorbidity subgroups. No ICU-admission or mortality were reported among fully vaccinated cases. Of unvaccinated cases, mortality was 10% and 19% was admitted at the ICU. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination provides a strong protective effect against COVID-19 related hospital admission, in patients with and without comorbidity. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction: The quality of scars has become an important outcome of burn care. Objective scar assessment through scar surface area measurement enables quantification of scar formation and evaluation of treatment efficacy. 3D technology has proven valid and reliable but often remains cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. 3D technology with depth sensors on mobile devices has become available and might surpass these limitations. This study provides a clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of a 3D system with a depth sensor for scar surface area measurement. Methods: A technology involving a depth sensor mounted on a mobile device was used. Images and analyses were made with a custom-made software application. A standardized one-keyframe image capturing procedure was followed. To assess validity, stickers with predefined dimensions (8.01 cm2 – 77.70 cm2) were imaged in a single observer setting on various body parts of healthy volunteers. To assess reliability, hypertrophic scars, keloids, and normotrophic scars were imaged and rated by two observers independently. Data are expressed as mean (+/-SD), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and Limits of Agreements (LoA). Results: Eighty stickers placed on 20 healthy volunteers showed validity with CV between 0.62%− 1.67% for observer A and 0.75%− 1.19% for observer B. For the reliability study, 69 scars on 36 patients were included. Mean scar surface area ranged from 0.83 cm2 to 155.59 cm2. Mean scar surface area measurement was 13.83 cm2 (SD 23.06) for observer A and 13.59 cm2 (SD 23.31) for observer B. Adjusted interobserver CV for trained observers is estimated as 5.59%, with corresponding LoA = 0 ± 0.15 x mean surface area. Interobserver ICCs were 0.99–1.00. Conclusion: This 3D technology with a depth sensor for measuring scar surface area provides valid and reliable data and thereby surpasses expensive and time-consuming 3D cameras.

The authors note that an incorrect version of their article was published. Please see below updated text for the section ‘‘Recommendations for Injection Techniques and Treatment Options’’ and correct Fig. 4. Based on this review we propose the following treatment algorithm for LIRs (Fig. 4). As stated above, culture proven infections are common after filler injection. Therefore, when clinical features of inflammation such as oedema, heat, erythema, tenderness or pain are present, the first choice should be conservative treatment with oral antibiotics. We recommend the use of tetracyclines (such as doxycycline or minocycline (100–200 mg daily) or clarithromycin because of their dual action as antimicrobial and immune modulatory medication. In some cases, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or oral corticosteroids can be added. When conservative treatment fails, it may be necessary to remove any residual filler material. Treatment option may be hyaluronidase (enzymes that are able to degrade hyaluronic acid) or intralesional laser treatment (ILT; removing the material in a microinvasive manner). When the aforementioned treatment options fail, or are not applicable, surgical treatment may be required. (Figure presented.).