The majority of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 fully recovered within a few weeks. However, a considerable number of patients of different ages still suffer from long-lasting problems similar to the multi-organ damage in its acute phase of infection, or experience symptoms continuously for a longer term after the recovery. The severity of the primary infection seems not to be associated with the possibility and severity of long-term symptoms. Various unresolved symptoms have been reported in COVID-19 survivors months after hospital discharge. Long COVID-19 Syndrome refers to survivors 4 months after initial symptoms onset. It is important to understand the systemic effects of Long COVID-19 Syndrome, its presentations, and the need for rehabilitations to restore functional recovery in survivors. Government, healthcare workers, and survivor groups should collaborate to establish a self-sustaining system to facilitate follow-up and rehabilitations, with prioritization of resources to more severely Long COVID-19 Syndrome survivors. This review looks into the systemic effects of Long COVID-19 Syndrome in various aspects: respiratory, cardiovascular, hematological, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological, and metabolic effects of Long COVID-19 Syndromes. Recommendations for follow-up and rehabilitations details have been explored to cope with the tremendous Long COVID-19 Syndrome patients.

Various strategies have been designed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them, vaccine development is high on the agenda in spite of the unknown duration of the protection time. Various vaccines have been under clinical trials with promising results in different countries. The protective efficacy and the short-term and long-term side effects of the vaccines are of major concern. Therefore, comparing the protective efficacy and risks of vaccination is essential for the global control of COVID-19 through herd immunity. This study reviews the most recent data of 12 vaccines to evaluate their efficacy, safety profile and usage in various populations.

COVID-19 has been spreading worldwide since late 2019. There is no definitive cure to date. Global vaccination programs are urgently required to confer herd immunity, reducing the incidence of COVID-19 infections and associated morbidity and mortality. However, a significant proportion of special populations are hesitant to receive vaccination due to their special conditions, namely, age (pediatrics and geriatrics), immunocompromised state, autoimmune diseases, chronic cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions, active or treated cancers, and pregnancy. This review aims to evaluate the existing evidence of COVID-19 vaccinations on these special populations and to provide clues to guide vaccination decision making to balance the benefits and risks of vaccinations.

Introduction: Midshaft clavicular fractures are common amongst young adults. Conservative or surgical treatment for definitive fracture management has been widely debate, both with their pros and cons. Previous meta-analyses compared the clinical outcomes between conservative and surgical treatment options of midshaft clavicular fractures but failed to elucidate any difference in functional improvement. We postulate that functional improvement after fracture union plateaus and the clinical outcome after treatment varies at different time points. This meta-analysis will focus on the synthesis comparison of outcomes at early, short-term results (3 months), intermediate-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (>24 months) clinical outcomes.Methods: A systematic search was done on databases (Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane) in June 2021. Search keywords were: midshaft clavicular fractures and clinical trials. Clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for comparison and the clinical outcomes of midshaft clavicular fractures using surgical and non-surgical interventions in terms of improvement in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), time to union and risk ratio of treatment related complications were analysed in correlation with post-treatment timeframe.Results: Of the 3094 patients of mean age 36.7 years in the 31 selected studies, surgical intervention was associated with improved DASH score (standard-mean difference SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07, p = 0.003; mean difference MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.51, p = 0.005), CMS (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.17–0.72, p = 0.001; MD 3.64, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.19, p = 0.005), time to union (non-adjusted SMD -2.83, 95% CI -4.59 to -1.07, p = 0.002; adjusted SMD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41, p<0.001) and risk ratio of bone-related complications including bone non-union, malunion and implant failure (0.21, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.42; p24 months SMD -4.24, 95% CI -7.03 to -1.45, p = 0.003) and CMS (>24 months, SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.68, p = 0.002; MD 5.77, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.91, p = 0.006). Surgical outcome is independent of fixation with plates or intra-medullary nails.Conclusion: Surgical intervention was associated with better clinical outcomes compared with non-surgical approach for midshaft clavicular fractures in terms of improvement in functional scores DASH, CMS, time to union and fracture related complications, although not to the minimal clinically significant difference. Benefits in the long-term functional improvements are more pronounced.

The COVID-19 outbreak was first reported in 2019, causing massive morbidity and mortality. The majority of the COVID-19 patients survived and developed Post-COVID-19 Syndrome (PC19S) of varying severity. Currently, the diagnosis of PC19S is achieved through history and symptomatology that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. However, the heavy reliance on subjective reporting is prone to reporting errors. Besides, there is no unified diagnostic assessment tool to classify the clinical severity of patients. This leads to significant difficulties when managing patients in terms of public resource utilization, clinical progression monitorization and rehabilitation plan formulation. This narrative review aims to review current evidence of diagnosis based on triple assessment: clinical symptomatology, biochemical analysis and imaging evidence. Further assessment tools can be developed based on triple assessment to monitor patient’s clinical progression, prognosis and intervals of monitoring. It also highlights the high-risk features of patients for closer and earlier monitoring. Rehabilitation programs and related clinical trials are evaluated; however, most of them focus on cardiorespiratory fitness and psychiatric presentations such as anxiety and depression. Further research is required to establish an objective and comprehensive assessment tool to facilitate clinical management and rehabilitation plans.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in the treatment of radioiodine‐refractory thyroid carcinoma.Background: Thyroid carcinoma is one of the top ten carcinomas worldwide. Clinically, thyroid cancers are managed with resections and adjuvant therapy with radioiodine. However, radioiodine is not effective for radioiodine‐refractory (RR) thyroid carcinoma in some patients.Lenvatinib is a multi‐kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RR thyroid carcinoma. Several clinical trials showed its efficacy in prolonging progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Design, patients and measurements: A systematic search was done on databases (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) on 8 June 2020. Search keywords were lenvatinib, thyroid carcinoma and randomized controlled trials. Clinical trials fulfilling the SELECT protocol were selected to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in terms of prolongation of PFS, OS and objective response rate (ORR). The risk ratio and distribution of grade 3 or above adverse events were documented.Results: Of the 3997 patients of mean age 62.5 years in fifteen selected studies, lenvatinib is associated with prolonged PFS (hazard ratio 0.24, 95% CI, 0.19‐0.31, p < .001) and OS (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI, 0.52‐0.81, p < .001). Compared with placebo, the risk ratio of ORR and incidence of grade 3 or above adverse events are 35.41 (95% CI, 19.42‐64.58, p < .001) and 8.25 (95% CI, 6.50‐10.46, p < .001), respectively. Subgroup analysis shows that lenvatinib is effective for all patients with RR thyroid carcinoma, regardless of age, histological subtypes, radiological subtypes and mutation status.Conclusion: Lenvatinib is effective in the treatment of RR thyroid carcinoma. Close monitoring of serious adverse events is recommended.