Effectiveness of a virtual reality trainer for retention of tourniquet application skills for hemorrhage control among emergency medicine residents.

Background: With a rise in mass casualty incidents, training in hemorrhage control using tourniquets has been championed as a basic-and lifesaving-procedure for bystanders and medical professionals alike. The current standard for training is in-person (IP) courses, which can be limited based on instructor availability. Virtual reality (VR) has demonstrated the potential to improve the accuracy of certain medical tasks but has not yet been developed for hemorrhage control. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a VR hemorrhage trainer in learner retention of tourniquet application when compared to traditional IP instructor teaching among a cohort of emergency medicine residents practicing in a Level I trauma center. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study of 53 emergency medicine residents at an inner-city program. Participants were randomly assigned to either the control or the VR group. On Day 0, all residents underwent a training session (IP vs. VR) for the proper, stepwise application of a tourniquet, as defined by the American College of Trauma Surgeons. Each participant was then assessed on the application of a tourniquet by a blinded instructor using the National Registry Hemorrhage Control Skills Lab rubric. After 3 months, each resident was reevaluated on the same rubric, with subsequent data analysis on successful tourniquet placement (measured as under 90 s) and time to completion. Results: Of the 53 participants, the IP training group had an initial pass rate of 97% (28/29) compared to 92% (22/24) in the VR group (p = 0.58). On retention testing, the IP training group had a pass rate of 95% (20/21) compared to 90% (18/20) in the VR group (p = 0.62). Stratifying the success of tourniquet placement by level of resident training did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences. Conclusions: In this pilot study of emergency medicine residents, we found no significant differences in successful hemorrhage control by tourniquet placement between those trained with VR compared to a traditional IP course among emergency medicine residents. While more studies with greater power are needed, the results suggest that VR may be a useful adjunct to traditional IP medical training.

In Situ Simulation as a Quality Improvement Tool to Identify and Mitigate Latent Safety Threats for Emergency Department SARS-CoV-2 Airway Management: A Multi-Institutional Initiative.

BACKGROUND: In situ simulation has emerged as a powerful quality improvement (QI) tool in the identification of latent safety threats (LSTs). Following the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 at an urban epicenter of the disease, a multi-institutional collaborative was formed to integrate an in situ simulation protocol across five emergency departments (EDs) for systems improvement of acute airway management. METHODS: A prospective, multi-institutional QI initiative using two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles was implemented across five EDs. Each institution conducted simulations involving mannequins in acute respiratory failure requiring definitive airways. Simulations and systems-based debriefs were standardized. LSTs were collected in an online database, focused on (1) equipment availability, (2) infection control, and (3) communication. RESULTS: From June 2020 through May 2021, 58 of 70 (82.9%) planned simulations were completed across five sites with 328 unique individual participants. Overall LSTs per simulation (7.00-4.69, p < 0.001) and equipment LSTs (3.00-1.46, p < 0.001) decreased from cycle 1 to cycle 2. Changes in mean LSTs for infection control and communication categories varied among sites. There was no correlation between total LSTs or any of the categories and team size. Number of beds occupied was significantly negatively correlated with total and infection control LSTs. CONCLUSION: This study was unique in simultaneously running a structured in situ protocol across numerous diverse institutions during a global pandemic. This initiative found similar categories of threats across sites, and the protocol developed empowered participants to implement changes to mitigate identified threats.

Learning Outcomes of High-fidelity versus Table-Top Simulation in Undergraduate Emergency Medicine Education: Prospective, Randomized, Crossover-Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last several decades simulation, in both graduate and undergraduate emergency medicine education, has continued to develop as a leading and highly effective teaching modality. Limited research exists to evaluate the efficacy of low-fidelity (table-top) simulation, as compared to high-fidelity standards, as it relates to medical knowledge learning outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy of a low-fidelity simulation modality in undergraduate emergency medicine education, based on quantitative medical knowledge learning outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover-control study comparing objective medical knowledge learning outcomes between simulation modalities. Analysis was designed to evaluate for the statistical equivalence of learning outcomes between the two cohorts. This was done by comparing a calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) around the mean difference in post-test scores, between experimental and control modalities, to a pre-established equivalence margin. RESULTS: Primary outcomes evaluating student performance on post-test examinations demonstrated a total cohort CI (95% CI, -0.22 and 0.68). Additional course-subject subgroup analysis demonstrated non-inferior CIs with: Shortness of Breath (95% CI, -0.35 and 1.27); Chest Pain (95% CI, -0.53 and.94); Abdominal Pain (95% CI, -0.88 and 1.17); Cardiovascular Shock (95% CI, -0.04 and 1.29). Secondary outcome analysis was done to evaluate medical knowledge acquisition by comparing the difference in pre and post-test examination between the cohorts. CI of the full cohort ranged from (95% CI, -0.14 and 0.96). CONCLUSION: The student's performance on quantitative medical-knowledge assessment was equivalent between the high-fidelity control and low-fidelity experimental simulation groups. Analysis of knowledge acquisition between the two groups also demonstrated statistical equivalence.

Safety Considerations for In Situ Simulation in Closed SARS-CoV-2 Units.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic placed a tremendous strain on the healthcare system, which led to the deployment of new personnel into acute care settings, early graduation of medical students, and development of new treatment spaces. Education teams at the Montefiore Health System and New York Health and Hospitals/Jacobi Medical Center found simulation, both laboratory-based and in situ, critical to the training of medical staff and investigation of latent safety threats. Through our experience, we encountered unique infection control concerns based on in situ sessions, which prompted us to redesign our programs for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Using this experience, we outline our rationale for the use of in situ simulation for newly developed SARS-CoV-2 spaces along with recommendations on safety checks to consider before starting.

Using a Logic Model to Enable and Evaluate Long-Term Outcomes of a Mass Casualty Training Program: A Single Center Case Study.

PURPOSE: Global health disasters are on the rise and can occur at any time with little advance warning, necessitating preparation. The authors created a comprehensive evidence-based Emergency Preparedness Training Program focused on long-term retention and sustained learner engagement. METHOD: A prospective observational study was conducted of a simulation-based mass casualty event training program designed using an outcomes-based logic model. A total of 25 frontline healthcare workers from multiple hospital sites in the New York metropolitan area participated in an 8-hour immersive workshop. Data was collected from assessments, and surveys provided to participants 3 weeks prior to the workshop, immediately following the workshop, and 3 months after completion of the workshop. RESULTS: The mean percentage of total knowledge scores improved across pre-workshop, post-workshop and retention (3 months post-workshop) assessments (53.2% vs. 64.8% vs. 67.6%, P < 0.05). Average comfort scores in the core MCI competencies increased across pre-workshop, post-workshop and retention self-assessments (P < 0.01). Of the participants assessed at 3 months retention (n = 14, 56%), 50.0% (n = 7) assisted in updating their hospital's emergency operations plan and 50.0% (n = 7) pursued further self-directed learning in disaster preparedness medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the logic model provided a transparent framework for the design, implementation, and evaluation of a competency-based EPT program at a single academic center.

A randomized controlled trial of ibuprofen versus ketorolac versus diclofenac for acute, nonradicular low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first-line medication for acute low back pain (LBP). It is unclear if the choice of NSAID impacts outcomes. We compared ibuprofen, ketorolac, and diclofenac for the treatment of acute, nonradicular LBP. METHODS: This was a three-armed, double-blind, comparative effectiveness study, in which we enrolled patients at the conclusion of an ED visit for musculoskeletal LBP and determined outcomes by telephone 5 days later. Patients were randomized to receive a 5-day supply of 600 mg of ibuprofen, 10 mg of ketorolac, or 50 mg of diclofenac, each to be used every 8 h as needed. Every participant also received LBP education. The primary outcome was improvement in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item instrument on which lower scores indicate better LBP functional outcomes, between ED visit and day 5. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, measured using the descriptors none, mild, moderate, and severe, and the presence of stomach irritation. RESULTS: A total of 868 patients were screened and 66 patients were enrolled in each of the three arms. Baseline characteristics were similar. Improvements in RMDQ by day 5 were as follows: ibuprofen 9.4, ketorolac 11.9, and diclofenac 10.9 (p = 0.34). Mild or no pain on day 5 was as follows: ibuprofen 38 of 61 (62%), ketorolac 47 of 59 (80%), and diclofenac 45 of 62 (71%; 95% CI for rounded mean difference of 17% between ibuprofen and ketorolac = 1, 33%, p = 0.04, number needed to treat = 6 [95% CI = 3-69]). Stomach irritation was reported by 16 of 62 (26%) ibuprofen patients versus three of 61 (5%) in the ketorolac arm and six of 64 (9%) in the diclofenac arm (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There were no important differences between groups with regard to the primary outcome. These data do not rule out that possibility that ketorolac results in better pain relief and less stomach irritation than ibuprofen.

Social Media Bridges the Training Gap Between Match Day and Internship With ACGME Milestone-based Clinical Case Curriculum.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to bridge the relative educational gap for newly matched emergency medicine preinterns between Match Day and the start of internship by implementing an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone (ACGME)-based virtual case curriculum over the social media platform Slack. METHODS: We designed a Milestone-based curriculum of 10 emergency department clinical cases and used Slack to implement it. An instructor was appointed for each participating institution to lead the discussion and encourage collaboration among preinterns. Pre- and postcurriculum surveys utilized 20 statements adapted from the eight applicable Milestones to measure the evolution of preintern self-reported perceived preparedness (PP) as well as actual clinical knowledge (CK) performance on a case-based examination. RESULTS: A total of 11 institutions collaborated and 151 preinterns were contacted, 127 of whom participated. After participating in the Slack intern curriculum (SIC), preinterns reported significant improvements in PP regarding multiple Milestone topics. They also showed improved CK regarding the airway management Milestone based on examination performance. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of our SIC may ease the difficult transition between medical school and internship for emergency medicine preinterns. Residency leadership and medical school faculty will benefit from knowledge of preintern PP, specifically of their perceived strengths and weaknesses, because this information can guide curricular focus at the end of medical school and beginning of internship. Limitations of this study include variable participation and a high attrition rate. Further studies will address the utility of such a virtual curriculum for preinterns and for rotating medical students who have been displaced from clinical rotations during the novel coronavirus pandemic.

A randomized controlled trial of oxycodone/acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alone for emergency department patients with musculoskeletal pain refractory to ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: Use of oral opioids does not result in more pain relief than nonopioid alternatives when administered to patients as first-line treatment for acute musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy of oxycodone/acetaminophen to that of acetaminophen alone as second-line treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who were administered prescription-strength ibuprofen and reported insufficient relief 1 h later. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in two urban emergency departments. Opioid-naïve patients ≥ 18 years with an acute musculoskeletal injury were administered ibuprofen 600 mg as part of the study protocol. Those who reported insufficient relief 1 h later were randomized (1:1 ratio) to oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 650 mg or acetaminophen 650 mg. The primary outcome was improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale between randomization and 2 h later. We also assessed medication-associated adverse events. A sample size calculation, built around a minimum clinically important difference of 1.3 units, determined the need for 154 patients. RESULTS: We screened 924 patients and enrolled 393. All 393 received ibuprofen. A total of 159 (40%) patients reported inadequate relief after 1 h had elapsed. A total of 154 of these were randomized, 77 to oxycodone/acetaminophen and 77 to acetaminophen. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Among patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen, mean (±SD) improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale was 4.0 (±2.6) versus 2.9 (±2.4) in the acetaminophen arm. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference of 1.1 was 0.3 to 1.9. Among patients who received oxycodone/acetaminophen, 26 of 76 (34%) reported any medication-related adverse event versus seven of 74 (9%) participants who received acetaminophen. The 95% CI for the between-group difference of 25% was 12% to 37%). CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute musculoskeletal pain refractory to oral ibuprofen, oxycodone/acetaminophen resulted in slightly greater pain relief than acetaminophen, but this was associated with more medication-related adverse events.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen as an Analgesic Adjunct for Older Adults With Acute Severe Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are at risk for undertreatment of pain. We examined intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an analgesic adjunct to IV opioids in the care of older emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, New York. Eligible adults aged 65 years and older with acute severe pain were randomized to 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 1 g of IV acetaminophen or 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 100 mL of normal saline placebo. The primary outcome was the between group difference in improvement of numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 60 minutes. Secondary outcomes were the between-group differences in the proportion of patients who chose to forgo additional pain medications at 60 minutes; the proportion who developed side effects; the proportion who required rescue analgesia; and between-group differences in NRS pain scores at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were allocated to each arm. Eighty patients in the IV acetaminophen arm and 79 patients in the placebo arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group improved by 5.7 NRS units while those in the hydromorphone + placebo group improved by 5.2 NRS units, for a difference of 0.6 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.4 to 1.5). A total of 28.7% of patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group wanted more analgesia at 60 minutes versus 29.1% in the hydromorphone + placebo group, for a difference of -0.4% (95% CI = -14.3% to 13.5%). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. Safety profiles were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of IV acetaminophen to IV hydromorphone as an adjunctive analgesic for acute, severe, pain in older adults provided neither clinically nor statistically superior pain relief when compared to hydromorphone alone within the first hour of treatment.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen Versus Intravenous Hydromorphone for the Treatment of Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: As clinicians look to nonnarcotic analgesics in the emergency department (ED), it is essential to understand the effectiveness and adverse effects of nonopioid medications in comparison with existing opioid treatments. Studies of intravenous acetaminophen for acute pain in the ED demonstrate mixed results and suffer from small sample sizes and methodological limitations. This study compares intravenous hydromorphone with intravenous acetaminophen in adult ED patients presenting with acute pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing 1 g intravenous acetaminophen with 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone for treatment of adults with severe, acute pain in the ED. The primary outcome was between-group difference in change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 60 minutes postadministration of study medication. Secondary outcomes included the difference in proportion of patients in each group who declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes, received additional medication before 60 minutes, and developed nausea, vomiting, or pruritus. RESULTS: Of 220 subjects randomized, 103 patients in each arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, the mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain score was 5.3 in the hydromorphone arm and 3.3 in the acetaminophen arm, a difference of 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 2.7) favoring hydromorphone. A greater proportion of patients in the hydromorphone arm also declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes (65% versus 44%; difference 21%; (95% CI 8% to 35%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients receiving rescue analgesia before 60 minutes. Significantly more subjects in the hydromorphone group developed nausea (19% versus 3%; difference 16%; 95% CI 4% to 28%) and vomiting (14% versus 3%; difference 11%; 95% CI 0% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Although both 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 1 g intravenous acetaminophen provided clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores, treatment with hydromorphone provided both clinically and statistically greater analgesia than acetaminophen, at the cost of a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting.

A Randomized Trial of a Long-Acting Depot Corticosteroid Versus Dexamethasone to Prevent Headache Recurrence Among Patients With Acute Migraine Who Are Discharged From an Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Migraine patients continue to report headache during the days and weeks after emergency department (ED) discharge. Dexamethasone is an evidence-based treatment of acute migraine that decreases the frequency of moderate or severe headache within 72 hours of ED discharge. We hypothesize that intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate, a long-acting steroid that remains biologically active for 14 days, will decrease the number of days with headache during the week after ED discharge by at least 1 day compared with intramuscular dexamethasone. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, blinded clinical trial comparing intravenous metoclopramide at 10 mg+intramuscular dexamethasone at 10 mg with intravenous metoclopramide at 10 mg+intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate at a dose of 160 mg for patients presenting to 2 different EDs with moderate or severe migraine. Outcomes were assessed by telephone with a standardized instrument. The primary outcome was number of days with headache during the week after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes were complete freedom from headache, without the necessity of additional headache medication for the entire week after ED discharge, and medication preference, as determined by asking the patient whether he or she would want to receive the same medication again. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients received dexamethasone and 111 received methylprednisolone acetate. We obtained primary outcome data from 101 dexamethasone patients and 106 methylprednisolone acetate patients. Dexamethasone patients reported 3.0 headache days and methylprednisolone acetate 3.3 headache days (95% confidence interval for rounded mean difference of 0.4 days: -0.4 to 1.1). Of 107 dexamethasone patients with analyzable data, 10 (9%) reported complete freedom from headache at 1 week versus 6 of 110 (5%) methylprednisolone acetate patients (95% confidence interval for difference of 4%: -3% to 11%). In the dexamethasone group, 76 of 101 (75%) patients would want the same medication again versus 75 of 106 (71%) of methylprednisolone acetate patients (95% confidence interval for difference of 4%: -8% to 17%). Other than injection site reactions, which were more common in the methylprednisolone acetate group, there were no substantial differences in frequency of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Methylprednisolone acetate does not decrease the frequency of post-ED discharge headache days compared with dexamethasone. Most migraine patients are likely to continue to experience headache during the week after ED discharge.

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized that decline in pain intensity from 30 to 120 minutes after initial intravenous opioid administration is greater in patients receiving morphine by patient-controlled analgesia compared with usual care and would differ by a clinically significant amount. METHOD: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia and usual care (opioid and dose at physician's discretion) in 4 EDs. Entry criteria included age 18 to 65 years and acute pain requiring intravenous opioids. The primary outcome was decline in numeric rating scale pain score 30 to 120 minutes postbaseline. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, time to analgesia, adverse events, and patient-controlled analgesia pump-related problems. We used a mixed-effects linear model to compare rate of decline in pain (slope) between groups. A clinically significant difference between groups was defined as a difference in slopes equivalent to 1.3 numeric rating scale units. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled. The rate of decline in pain from 30 to 120 minutes was greater for patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (difference=1.0 numeric rating scale unit; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6 to 1.5; P<.001) but did not reach the threshold for clinical significance. More patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia were satisfied with pain management (difference=9.3%; 95% CI 3.3% to 15.1%). Median time to initial analgesia was 15 minutes longer for patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (95% CI 11.4 to 18.6 minutes). There were 7 adverse events in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 1 in the usual care group (difference=2.0%; 95% CI 0.04% to 3.9%), and 11 pump-programming errors. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study do not favor patient-controlled analgesia over usual ED care for acute pain management.

Current management of migraine in US emergency departments: an analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

BACKGROUND: Published data from 1998 revealed that most patients treated for migraine in an emergency department received opioids. Over the intervening years, a large body of evidence has emerged demonstrating the efficacy and safety of non-opioid alternatives. Expert opinion during these years has cautioned against use of opioids for migraine. Our objectives were to compare current frequency of use of various medications for acute migraine in US emergency departments with use of these same medications in 1998 and to identify factors independently associated with opioid use. METHODS: We analyzed National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010, the most current dataset available. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a public dataset collected and distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a multi-stage probability sample from randomly selected emergency departments across the country, designed to be representative of all US emergency department visits. We included in our analysis all patients with the ICD9 emergency department discharge diagnosis of migraine. We tabulated frequency of use of specific medications in 2010 and compared these results with the 1998 data. Using a logistic regression model, into which all of the following variables were entered, we explored the independent association between any opioid use in 2010 and sex, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, type of hospital, triage pain score and history of emergency department use within the previous 12 months. RESULTS: In 2010, there were 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.9, 1.4) million migraine visits to US emergency departments. Including opioid-containing oral analgesic combinations, opioids were administered in 59% of visits (95% confidence interval 51, 67). The most commonly used parenteral agent, hydromorphone, was used in 25% (95% confidence interval 19, 33) of visits in 2010 versus less than 1% (95% confidence interval 0, 3) in 1998. Conversely, use of meperidine had decreased markedly over the same timeframe. In 2010, it was used in just 7% (95% confidence interval 4, 12) of visits compared to 37% (95% confidence interval 29, 45) in 1998. Metoclopramide, the most commonly used anti-dopaminergic, was administered in 17% (95% confidence interval 12, 23) of visits in 2010 and 3% (95% confidence interval 1, 6) of visits in 1998. Use of any triptan was relatively uncommon in 2010 (7% (95% confidence interval 4, 11) of visits) and in 1998 (10% (95% confidence interval 6, 15) of visits). Of the predictor variables listed above, only emergency department use within the previous 12 months was associated with opioid administration (adjusted odds ratio: 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 7.97)). CONCLUSIONS: In spite of recommendations to the contrary, opioids are still used in more than half of all emergency department visits for migraine. Though use of meperidine has decreased markedly between 1998 and 2010, it has largely been replaced by hydromorphone. Opioid use in migraine visits is independently associated with prior visits to the same emergency department in the previous 12 months.

Selective inhibition of COX-2 is beneficial to mice infected intranasally with VSV.

Cyclooxygenase (COX) is the key enzyme for prostaglandin (PG) synthesis. PGs are mediators of many critical physiological and inflammatory responses. There are two isoforms, COX-1 and COX-2, both of which are constitutively expressed in the central nervous system (CNS). Studies have shown that COX-1 and COX-2 are involved in physiological and pathological conditions of the brain. However, little is known about the role(s) of COX in the host defense system against a viral infection in the CNS. In this report, we used Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) induced acute encephalitis to distinguish between the contribution(s) of the two isoforms. COX-2 activity was inhibited with a COX-2 selective drug, celecoxib (Celebrex), and COX-1 was antagonized with SC560. We found that inhibition of COX-2 led to decreased viral titers, while COX-1 antagonism did not have the same effect at day 1 post infection. 5-lipooxygenase (5-LO) expression and neutrophil recruitment in the CNS were increased in celecoxib-inhibited mice. Furthermore, mice treated with celecoxib expressed more Nitric Oxide Synthase-1 (NOS-1), a crucial component of the innate immune system in the restriction of VSV propagation. The expression of type 1 cytokines, IFN-gamma and IL-12, were also increased in celecoxib-treated mice.