Variability in non-core vaccination rates of dogs and cats in veterinary clinics across the United States

Vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats indicate that core vaccines (for dogs, rabies, distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus; for cats, feline parvovirus, herpes virus-1, calicivirus) are essential to maintain health, and that non-core vaccines be administered according to a clinician’s assessment of a pet’s risk of exposure and susceptibility to infection. A reliance on individual risk assessment introduces the potential for between-practice inconsistencies in non-core vaccine recommendations. A study was initiated to determine non-core vaccination rates of dogs (Leptospira, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine influenza virus) and cats (feline leukemia virus) in patients current for core vaccines in veterinary practices across the United States. Transactional data for 5,531,866 dogs (1,670 practices) and 1,914,373 cats (1,661 practices) were retrieved from practice management systems for the period November 1, 2016 through January 1, 2020, deidentified and normalized. Non-core vaccination status was evaluated in 2,798,875 dogs and 788,772 cats that were core-vaccine current. Nationally, median clinic vaccination rates for dogs were highest for leptospirosis (70.5%) and B. bronchiseptica (68.7%), and much lower for canine influenza (4.8%). In Lyme-endemic states, the median clinic borreliosis vaccination rate was 51.8%. Feline leukemia median clinic vaccination rates were low for adult cats (34.6%) and for kittens and 1-year old cats (36.8%). Individual clinic vaccination rates ranged from 0 to 100% for leptospirosis, B. bronchiseptica and feline leukemia, 0–96% for canine influenza, and 0–94% for borreliosis. Wide variation in non-core vaccination rates between clinics in similar geographies indicates that factors other than disease risk are driving the use of non-core vaccines in pet dogs and cats, highlighting a need for veterinary practices to address gaps in patient protection. Failure to implement effective non-core vaccination strategies leaves susceptible dogs and cats unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases.     

Robust antibody response after a third BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the second among immunocompromised and healthy individuals,a prospective longitudinal cohort study

PurposeAs protection from COVID-19 following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a time dependent waning, a third (booster) dose was administrated. This study aims to compare the antibody response following the third dose versus the second and to evaluate post-booster seroconversion.MethodsA prospective observational study conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services. Serial SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests, 1,2,3 and 6 months following the second vaccine dose and one month following the third were obtained. Neutralizing antibody levels were measured in a subset of participants. Per individual SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG titer ratios were calculated one month after the booster administration compared to titers one month following the second dose and prior to booster.ResultsAmong 110 participants, 56 (51%) were women. Mean age was 61.7 ± 1.9 years and 66 (60%) were immunocompromised. One month after third dose, IgG titers were induced 7.83 (95 %CI 5.25–11.67) folds and 2.40 (95 %CI 1.90–3.03) folds compared to one month after the second, in the immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups, respectively. Of the 17 immunocompromised participants who were seronegative after the second dose, 4 (24%) became seropositive following the third. Comparing the titers prior to the third dose, an increase of 50.7 (95 %CI 32.5–79.1) fold in the immunocompromised group and 25.7 (95 %CI 19.1–34.7) fold in and immunocompetent group, was observed.ConclusionA third BNT162b2 vaccine elicited robust humoral response, superior to the response observed following the second, among immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals.     

Endoscopic diagnosis of sessile serrated polyp: A systematic review

The aim of the present review was to clarify how we should detect and diagnose sessile serrated polyps (SSP) endoscopically. A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE from January 2004 through March 2018. Nine findings: (i) proximal location; (ii) size >10 mm; (iii) irregular shape; (iv) indistinctive border; (v) cloud‐like surface; (vi) mucus cap; (vii) rim of debris in white‐light endoscopy; (viii) dilated vessels; and (ix) dilated crypts (pits) in image‐enhanced endoscopy were considered to be candidate discriminators of SSP from hyperplastic polyps. Prospective studies in a general setting are warranted to validate the above‐mentioned endoscopic features of SSP during real‐time colonoscopy and to determine whether these features are useful for the differential diagnosis of SSP.     

Management of immune-related adverse events resulting from immune checkpoint blockade

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now a standard of care in the treatment of many cancers leading to durable responses in patients with metastatic disease. These agents are generally well tolerated but may lead to the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As any organ may be affected, clinicians should be aware of the broad range of clinical manifestations and symptoms and keep in mind that toxicities may occur late, at any point along a patient’s treatment course. Although the most common irAEs are rarely severe, some of them may be associated with great morbidity and even become life-threatening. The rate of occurrence, type and severity of irAEs may vary with the type of ICI; thus, grade 3 and 4 irAEs are reported in more than 55% of patients treated with the combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg.

Area covered: This review presents the management of irAEs resulting from checkpoint blockade, with a focus on rare irAEs.

Expert commentary: With the development of immuno-oncology and the expanding role of ICI, physicians have learnt to diagnose and treat most of the irAEs that can occur. This review provides an overview of current guidelines, previously published studies and our multidisciplinary team based practices.     

HPLC-MS/MS测定连翘中连翘酯苷A、阿魏酸、槲皮素、松脂醇β-D葡萄糖苷、连翘苷的含量

[目的]建立采用HPLC-MS/MS测定连翘中连翘酯苷A、阿魏酸、槲皮素、松脂醇β-D葡萄糖苷、连翘苷的含量的方法,为其开发应用提供方法参考。[方法]色谱柱选用Phenomenex Luna C18柱(150 mm×2. 0 mm,5μm);流动相A:0. 1%甲酸溶液,流动相B:100%乙腈;流速为0. 7 m L/min;进样量为12μL;洗脱梯度设定为:0～5 min,10%～55%B; 5～11 min,55%～100%B。质谱选择负离子扫描,离子源为电喷雾式(ESI)。采用多反应监测的检测模式,喷雾电压:-4. 7 k V,雾化气压0. 5 MPa,雾化温度620℃,氮气压力0. 65 MPa。[结果]本次研究所检测的连翘在可测定浓度的范围内5种成分的峰面积与浓度都表现出较好的线性关系,加样后的回收率在97. 8%～99. 5%之间。[结论]采用HPLC-MS/MS测定连翘中5中成分的含量效果较好,灵敏度高、结果可靠,为连翘的开发应用以及质量控制提供了参考。     

Hypofractionated radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: From moderate to extreme protocols

Adjuvant irradiation is the standard treatment after breast conservative surgery. Normofractionated regimen with an overall treatment time of 5 to 6 weeks is often considered as a limiting factor for irradiation compliance. In order to answer this issue, moderate and more recently extreme hypofractionated protocols appeared. We report here oncological outcomes and toxicity of hypofractionated breast irradiation. After defining the frame of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiations based on overall treatment time, patient selection criteria were listed. According to their levels of proof, the results of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation were analysed. Overall treatment time for moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation ranged from 3 to 4 weeks, while for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, it was less than 1 week. For moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation, whole breast irradiation was currently performed with or without lymph node irradiation. Moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation has proven to be as safe and as efficient as normofractionated breast irradiation with level IA evidence. For extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, phase III randomized trials confirmed that accelerated partial breast irradiation was non-inferior in terms of local control compared to normofractionated whole breast irradiation (with external beam radiation therapy and multicatheter brachytherapy), with similar acute and late toxicity. While the use of intraoperative breast irradiation remains under debate, new very accelerated partial breast irradiation (overall treatment time not exceeding 2 days) protocols emerged with encouraging results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation is warranted for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation and is indicated for low-risk breast cancers. Moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation regimens are validated and can be routinely proposed according to patient selection criteria.     

Solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach: Deficiency of mismatch repair and SWI/SNF complex

ARID1A, one of the subunits in SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, is frequently mutated in gastric cancers with microsatellite instability (MSI). The most frequent MSI in solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) has been reported, but the SWI/SNF complex status in solid‐type PDA is still largely unknown. We retrospectively analyzed 54 cases of solid‐type PDA for the expressions of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6), SWI/SNF complex subunits (ARID1A, INI1, BRG1, BRM, BAF155, and BAF170) and EBER, and mutations in KRAS and BRAF. We analyzed 40 cases of another histological type of gastric cancer as a control group. The solid‐type PDAs showed coexisting glandular components (76%), MMR deficiency (39%), and complete/partial loss of ARID1A (31%/7%), INI1 (4%/4%), BRG1 (48%/30%), BRM (33%/33%), BAF155 (13%/41%), and BAF170 (6%/2%), EBER positivity (4%), KRAS mutation (2%), and BRAF mutation (2%). Compared to the control group, MMR deficiency and losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 were significantly frequent in solid‐type PDAs. Mismatch repair deficiency was associated with the losses of ARID1A, BRG1, and BAF155 in solid‐type PDAs. In the MMR‐deficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 compared to glandular components (P = .0268, P = .0181, P = .0224, and P = .0071, respectively). In the MMR‐proficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent loss of BRG1 compared to glandular components (P = .012). In conclusion, solid‐type PDAs showed frequent losses of MMR proteins and the SWI/SNF complex. We suggest that loss of the SWI/SNF complex could induce a morphological shift from differentiated‐type adenocarcinoma to solid‐type PDA.