Objectives/Hypothesis To determine the effect of povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) nasal sprays on nasopharyngeal (NP) viral load as assessed by cycle threshold (Ct) on quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 in outpatients. Study Design Three arm, triple blinded, randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Methods Participants were randomized within 5 days of testing positive for COVID‐19 to receive nasal sprays containing placebo (0.9% saline), 0.5% PVP‐I, or 2.0% PVP‐I. NP swabs for qPCR analysis were taken at baseline, 1‐hour post‐PVP‐I spray (two sprays/nostril), and 3 days post‐PVP‐I spray (20 sprays/nostril). Symptom and adverse event questionnaires were completed at baseline, day 3, and day 5. University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Tests (UPSIT) were completed at baseline and day 30. Results Mean Ct values increased over time in all groups, indicating declining viral loads, with no statistically significant difference noted in the rate of change between placebo and PVP‐I groups. The 2.0% PVP‐I group showed statistically significant improvement in all symptom categories; however, it also reported a high rate of nasal burning. Olfaction via UPSIT showed improvement by at least one category in all groups. There were no hospitalizations or mortalities within 30 days of study enrollment. Conclusions Saline and low concentration PVP‐I nasal sprays are well tolerated. Similar reductions in SARS‐CoV‐2 NP viral load were seen over time in all groups. All treatment groups showed improvement in olfaction over 30 days. These data suggest that dilute versions of PVP‐I nasal spray are safe for topical use in the nasal cavity, but that PVP‐I does not demonstrate virucidal activity in COVID‐19 positive outpatients. Level of Evidence 2 Laryngoscope, 132:2089–2095, 2022

Although early therapeutic research on psychedelics dates back to the 1940s, this field of investigation was met with many cultural and legal challenges in the 1970s. Over the past two decades, clinical trials using psychedelics have resumed. Therefore, the goal of this study was to (1) better characterize the recent uptrend in psychedelics in clinical trials and (2) identify areas where potentially new clinical trials could be initiated to help in the treatment of widely prevalent medical disorders. A systematic search was conducted on the clinicaltrials.gov database for all registered clinical trials examining the use of psychedelic drugs and was both qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Analysis of recent studies registered in clinicaltrials.gov was performed using Pearson's correlation coefficient testing. Statistical analysis and visualization were performed using R software. In totality, 105 clinical trials met this study's inclusion criteria. The recent uptrend in registered clinical trials studying psychedelics (p = 0.002) was similar to the uptrend in total registered clinical trials in the registry (p < 0.001). All trials took place from 2007 to 2020, with 77.1% of studies starting in 2017 or later. A majority of clinical trials were in phase 1 (53.3%) or phase 2 (25.7%). Common disorders treated include substance addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder. Potential research gaps include studying psychedelics as a potential option for symptomatic treatment during opioid tapering. There appears to be a recent uptrend in registered clinical trials studying psychedelics, which is similar to the recent increase in overall trials registered. Potentially, more studies could be performed to evaluate the potential of psychedelics for symptomatic treatment during opioid tapering and depression refractory to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE Spinal robotics for thoracolumbar procedures, predominantly employed for the insertion of pedicle screws, is currently an emerging topic in the literature. The use of robotics in instrumentation of the cervical spine has not been broadly explored. In this review, the authors aimed to coherently synthesize the existing literature of intraoperative robotic use in the cervical spine and explore considerations for future directions and developments in cervical spinal robotics. METHODS A literature search in the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases was performed for the purpose of retrieving all articles reporting on cervical spine surgery with the use of robotics. For the purposes of this study, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, retrospective case series, and individual case reports were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess risk of bias of the studies included in the review. To present and synthesize results, data were extracted from the included articles and analyzed using the PyMARE library for effect-size meta-analysis. RESULTS On careful review, 6 articles published between 2016 and 2022 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 nonrandomized controlled trial, 2 case series, and 2 case reports. These studies featured a total of 110 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (mean age 53.9 years, range 29–77 years; 64.5% males). A total of 482 cervical screws were placed with the use of a surgical robot, which yielded an average screw deviation of 0.95 mm. Cervical pedicle screws were the primary screw type used, at a rate of 78.6%. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 97.7% of screws in this review achieved a clinically acceptable grade. The average duration of surgery, blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were all decreased in minimally invasive robotic surgery relative to open procedures. Only 1 (0.9%) postoperative complication was reported, which was a surgical site infection, and the mean length of follow-up was 2.7 months. No mortality was reported. CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted cervical screw placement is associated with acceptable rates of clinical grading, operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications—all of which are equal to or improved relative to the metrics seen in the conventional use of fluoroscopy or computer-assisted navigation for cervical screw placement.

No abstract