INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) virus emerged and caused a worldwide pandemic, leading to measures being imposed by many countries to reduce its transmission. Singapore implemented the 'circuit breaker', which restricted all movements except for access to necessities and healthcare services. We aimed to investigate the impact of lockdown measures on the pattern of trauma and its effects. METHODS: An observational, retrospective, single-centre descriptive study was conducted using the trauma registry in Singapore General Hospital. It included patients above 18 years old who presented to the emergency department with trauma and were subsequently admitted. Patients admitted from 1 February 2020 to 31 July 2020 and those admitted during the same timeframe in 2019 were studied. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients aged ≥65 years and those <65 years. RESULTS: A total of 1,037 patients were included for analysis. A 17.6% increase in trauma presentations was seen from 2019 to 2020. Patients aged ≥65 years accounted for the rise in admissions. The predominant mechanism of injury was falls at home for older patients and vehicular accidents in patients <65 years. There were no significant differences in injury severity score, intensive care/high-dependency unit admission rates, length of stay, mortality rate, and subsequent need for inpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSION Our study provided information on differences in trauma presentations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are required to better inform on additional precautionary measures needed to reduce trauma and improve safety during future lockdowns and pandemics.
Humans ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Male ; Female ; Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology* ; Aged, 80 and over ; Middle Aged ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data* ; Adult ; Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data* ; Registries ; Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data* ; Pandemics ; Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data* ; Length of Stay ; Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data*

INTRODUCTION: This review aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for an enhanced primary series (third dose) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people with rheumatic diseases (PRDs) in the local and regional context. METHODS: Literature reviews were performed regarding the necessity, efficacy, safety and strategies for enhanced primary series COVID-19 vaccination in PRDs. Recommendations were developed based on evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Evidence was synthesised by eight working group members, and the consensus was achieved by a Delphi method with nine members of an expert task force panel. RESULTS: Two graded recommendations and one ungraded position statement were developed. PRDs have impaired immunogenicity from the COVID-19 vaccine and are at an increased risk of postvaccine breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and poor clinical outcomes, compared to the general population. We strongly recommend that PRDs on immunomodulatory drugs be offered a third dose of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine as part of an enhanced primary series, after the standard two-dose regimen. We conditionally recommend that the third dose of mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 be given at least 4 weeks after the second dose or as soon as possible thereafter. There is insufficient data to inform whether the third mRNA vaccine should be homologous or heterologous in PRDs. CONCLUSION These recommendations that were developed through evidence synthesis and formal consensus process provide guidance for an enhanced primary series COVID-19 vaccination in PRDs.
Humans ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage* ; Rheumatic Diseases/immunology* ; Singapore ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Vaccination/methods* ; Delphi Technique ; Immunization, Secondary

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the severe respiratory infectious diseases worldwide [such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza A H1N1 and novel coronavirus infection have attracted wide attention from all walks of life due to their superior pathogenicity and transmissibility. Aerosols-carrying pathogens are the main transmission route of many severe respiratory infectious diseases, which can lead to severe respiratory failure and even acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in infected individuals. Mechanical ventilation is the primary treatment for ARDS, and the small tidal volume, appropriate level of positive end-expiratory pressure based lung protective ventilation strategy can effectively reduce the incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). However, in the process of clinical treatment, it is sometimes necessary to briefly disconnect the connection between the artificial airway and the ventilator circuit, which will not only cause the residual aerosol in the respiratory system to spill out and pollute the surrounding environment, increase the risk of nosocomial infection including medical staff, but also interfere with the implementation of lung protective ventilation strategy and aggravate ventilator-induced lung injury. In addition, studies have shown that a lot of medical staff have nosocomial infections, especially staff involved in tracheal intubation, extubation and other airway related operations. In addition to enhancing personal protective measures, it is crucial to safeguard healthcare workers from aerosol contamination and minimize associated risks during airway management. At present, there are few researches on the temporary sealing of airway lines and ventilator system, and there is a lack of clear guidance. This review summarizes the research status in related fields to provide a reference for corresponding solutions and programs.
Humans ; Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology* ; Respiration, Artificial ; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/prevention & control* ; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ; COVID-19 ; Clinical Relevance

BACKGROUND: Owing to shortage of surgical and N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) during the COVID-2019 pandemic, various masks were developed to prevent infection. This study aimed to examine the inward leakage rate (ILR) of sealed face masks and modified surgical masks using a quantitative fit test and compared it with the ILR of unmodified N95 FFRs. METHODS: We conducted paired comparisons of ILRs of bent nose-fit wire masks, double masks, and N95 FFRs from October to December 2021. To measure the protective effectiveness of masks, participants wore masks, and the number of particles outside and inside the mask were measured. The ILR was based on the percentage of particles entering the mask using a fit tester. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 participants (20 men and 34 women) in this study. The median ILR for surgical masks without and with a W-shaped bend in the nose-fit wire were 96.44% and 50.82%, respectively. The nose-fit wire adjustment reduced the ILR of surgical masks by a mean of 28.57%, which was significantly lower than the ILR without adjustment (P < 0.001). For double masks, with surgical or polyurethane masks on top of the W-shaped mask, the ILR did not differ significantly from that of N95. Although the filtration performance of double surgical masks matched that of N95 masks, their ILR was notably higher, indicating that double masks do not provide equivalent protection. CONCLUSIONS Wearing N95 masks alone is effective in many cases. However, surgical mask modifications do not guarantee consistent effectiveness. Properly selected, sealed masks with a good fit overcome leakage, emphasizing their crucial role. Without evidence, mask-wearing may lead to unexpected infections. Education based on quantitative data is crucial for preventing adverse outcomes.
Male ; Humans ; Female ; N95 Respirators ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Masks ; Pandemics/prevention & control* ; Respiratory Protective Devices ; Materials Testing ; Equipment Design ; Occupational Exposure/prevention & control*

INTRODUCTION: Localised swelling at sites of filler injections has been reported in the Moderna mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trial. METHODS: We conducted a review of the existing data and literature on the potential pathophysiology for this adverse event and its potential management. RESULTS: Data from the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine Phase 3 trial and one case series were available. Three out of 30,400 subjects developed possible filler reaction in the Moderna trial. Two other cases were reported after emergency use authorisation. Reactions occurred at a mean of 1.4 days post-vaccination. Fillers were injected at a mean of 14.1 months before vaccination. Areas involved included lips, infraorbital areas and tear troughs. Treatment included observation, corticosteroids, antihistamine, hyaluronidase and 5-fluorouracil. CONCLUSION Rare, self-limiting adverse reactions to dermal fillers have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination. Clinicians should be aware of this clinical phenomenon and its management, as vaccination is carried out globally.
Humans ; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/adverse effects* ; Cosmetic Techniques/adverse effects* ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage* ; Dermal Fillers/administration & dosage* ; Edema/chemically induced* ; Injection Site Reaction/etiology*

INTRODUCTION: Widespread mask use is an important intervention for control of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, data on the factors affecting mask use are lacking. In this observational study, we evaluated the proportion of and factors influencing face mask use and related hygiene practices. METHODS: We observed randomly selected members from the public in 367 venues across Singapore, and recorded the proportion of individuals with full compliance with mask use and mask hygiene (hand hygiene before and after touching the mask or face). Logistic regression analyses were used to determine variables associated with mask and hand hygiene compliance. RESULTS: We made 3,821 observations - 2,149 (56.2%) females, 3,569 (93.4%) adults (≥21 years), 212 (5.5%) children (6-20 years) and 40 (1.0%) children (2-5 years). The overall full compliance rate (correct mask use), poor compliance rate (incorrect mask use) and absent mask use were 84.5%, 12.9% and 2.6%, respectively. The factors - male gender, fabric mask usage and crowded indoor venues - were associated with lower mask compliance. Face or mask touching behaviour was observed in 10.7% and 13.7% of individuals observed, respectively. Only one individual performed hand hygiene before and after touching the mask. CONCLUSION The rate of mask compliance was high, probably due to legislation mandating mask usage. However, specific factors and crowded indoor venues associated with lower mask compliance were identified. We also noted an issue with the absence of hand hygiene before and after face or mask touching. These issues may benefit from targeted public health messaging.
Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Singapore ; Masks ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Child ; Adolescent ; Hand Hygiene ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Young Adult ; Child, Preschool ; Pandemics/prevention & control* ; Middle Aged ; Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data*

Compared with conventional vaccines, mRNA vaccines have considerable advantages in design, production, and application, especially in dealing with emerging infectious diseases. Particularly, mRNA vaccines were the first to be recommended by the World Health Organization for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic. A key to the design of mRNA vaccines is to ensure the stable and sufficient expression of the encoded protein in the recipient. In recent years, advances have been attained in the experimental and computational research in this area. This review focused on the progress and problems in improving the translation efficiency of mRNA vaccines in recent years, aiming to promote related research.
mRNA Vaccines ; Humans ; Protein Biosynthesis ; Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology* ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; SARS-CoV-2/genetics* ; RNA, Messenger/genetics*

BACKGROUND: Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules. METHODS: Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted. REGISTRATION PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.
Adult ; Humans ; BNT162 Vaccine ; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Immunization Schedule ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects* ; Viral Vaccines ; mRNA Vaccines ; Antibodies, Neutralizing ; Antibodies, Viral

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become the primary approach in the fight against the spread of COVID-19. Studies have shown that vaccination against COVID-19 has adverse effects, particularly on human reproductive health, despite the fact that vaccination rates are still on the rise. However, few studies have reported whether vaccination affects the outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) or not. In this study, we compared the outcome of IVF-ET and the development of follicles and embryos between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of 10,541 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. 835 IVF cycles with a history of vaccination against COVID-19 and 1670 IVF cycles that served as negative controls were selected and analyzed utilizing the Matchlt package of R software ( http://www.R-project.org/ ) and the nearest neighbor matching algorithm for propensity-matched analysis at a 1:2 ratio. RESULTS: The number of oocytes collected in the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group were 8.00 (0, 40.00) and 9.00 (0, 77.00) ( P  = 0.073) and the good-quality embryo rates of the two groups were 0.56±0.32 and 0.56±0.31 averagely ( P  = 0.964). Clinical pregnancy rates for the vaccinated group and unvaccinated group were 42.4% (155/366) and 40.2% (328/816) ( P  = 0.486) and biochemical pregnancy rates were 7.1% (26/366) and 8.7% (71/816) ( P  = 0.355). Two other factors were analyzed in this study; vaccination among different genders and different types (inactivated vaccine or recombinant adenovirus vaccine) showed no statistically significant effect on the above outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In our findings, vaccination against COVID-19 showed no statistically significant effect on the outcomes of IVF-ET and the development of follicles and embryos, nor did the gender of the vaccinated person or the formulation of vaccines show significant effects.
Pregnancy ; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Retrospective Studies ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; Embryo Transfer ; Fertilization in Vitro ; Pregnancy Rate ; Vaccination

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccines help control the spread of infection. To date, 47 vaccines have been approved, with another 227 candidates in various stages of development. In the short period of time since the beginning of their use, evidence has begun to emerge of complications following vaccination in the form of the development or exacerbation of a number of pathological conditions (Block et al., 2022; Haseeb et al., 2022). For example, a population-based study in France identified 1612 cases of myocarditis and 1613 cases of pericarditis requiring hospital treatment within five months of vaccination (le Vu et al., 2022).
Humans ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects* ; Vaccination/adverse effects* ; Vitiligo/etiology* ; Thymus Gland/physiopathology*