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.     

The effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on survival parameters in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a retrospective study

ObjectiveThere is a paucity of data concerning the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of G-CSF use on relapse-free and overall survival in 358 consecutive, newly diagnosed pediatric ALL patients uniformly treated at the same institution between April 2012 and April 2020.Materials and MethodsPatients were evaluated in two separate periods, based on the G-CSF treatment approach. All patients who underwent ALL treatment between April 2012 and December 2016 received G-CSF (G-CSF⁺ arm; n: 245) in the course of the protocol for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia and/or inducing neutrophil recovery to prevent any treatment delay. No patients after December 2016 received G-CSF, even if they belonged to the high-risk group, and these were included in the G-CSF^? arm (n: 113).ResultsEstimated mean relapse-free (106.5 months; 95 % CI 102?110.8 vs 82 months 95 % CI 75.2?88.9; p: 0.794) and overall survival (111.4 months; 95 % CI 108?114.8 vs 85 months 95 % CI 80.4?89.8; p: 0.431) rates were similar between the G-CSF⁺ and G-CSF^? groups.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that G-CSF use during ALL treatment had no effect on relapse rates or overall survival.     

特发性肺纤维化急性加重期证候与血清生物标志物的相关性研究＊

目的 通过分析特发性肺纤维化急性加重期（AE-IPF）患者证候与血清生物标志物的关系，为中医辨证治疗提供参考。方法 采用观察性研究设计，收集2019年3月至2019年11月三个中心的AE-IPF患者76例，其中痰热壅肺证26例、痰浊阻肺证50例，并纳入健康志愿者10例作为对照。采用ELISA测定患者血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7、SP-A和SP-D水平，分析与中医证候的相关性。结果 AE-IPF患者血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7、SP-A和SP-D水平均显著高于健康对照组。血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7和SP-D水平在痰热壅肺证和痰浊阻肺证患者间无显著性差异（P＞0.05），而血清SP-A水平存在显著性差异（P＜0.05）。结论 血清SP-A与AE-IPF证候存在一定的相关性，血清SP-A的浓度升高，与痰热壅肺证关系越密切，反之，血清SP-A浓度降低，则与痰浊阻肺证关系越密切。AE-IPF痰热壅肺证患者的预后可能较痰浊阻肺证患者更差。     

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.     

Disparity in Utilization of Multiagent Therapy for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in the United States

BackgroundDespite high rate of cure in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) in clinical trials, outcomes in real-world practice are dismal. We utilized National Cancer Database (NCDB) to explore utilization of multiagent therapy in APL and identify any disparities in treatment in real-world practices.Patients and MethodsNCDB categorizes use of systemic chemotherapy into single agent versus multiagent therapy. Some patients received hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and unknown therapy; details of these treatments could not be ascertained. We therefore used multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate effects of covariates on the probability of multiagent therapy use in 6678 patients.ResultsCompared to patients >60 years, patients aged 0 to 18 years (hazard ratio[HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.5, P< .0001), 19 to 40 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.03-2.54, P= .03), and 41 to 60 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9, P< .0001) were more likely to receive multiagent therapy. Patients with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of 0 (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3, P= .001) and CCI of 1 (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9, P= .04) had a higher likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy than patients with CCI ≥ 3. Patients treated at academic cancer centers, compared to those treated at community cancer center (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, P= .001), comprehensive community cancer center (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8, P< .0001), and integrated network cancer center (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, P= .02) were more likely to be treated with multiagent therapy. Compared to the patients with private insurance, those with Medicaid had increased likelihood (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, P= .04) whereas uninsured patients had a lower likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.8, P= .0005).ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study is the first and the largest scale analysis of treatment practices in APL in real-world practices. Our findings highlight significant disparities in treatment of APL based on age, insurance, and health-system factors.     

Impact of COVID-19 and malaria coinfection on clinical outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesDespite the possibility of concurrent infection with COVID-19 and malaria, little is known about the clinical course of coinfected patients. We analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with concurrent COVID-19 and malaria infection.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study that assessed prospectively collected data of all patients who were admitted between May and December 2020 to the Universal COVID-19 treatment center (UCTC), Khartoum, Sudan. UCTC compiled demographic, clinical, laboratory (including testing for malaria), and outcome data in all patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized at that clinic. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. We built proportional hazard Cox models with malaria status as the main exposure and stepwise adjustment for age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, and hypertension.ResultsWe included 591 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who were also tested for malaria. Mean (SD) age was 58 (16.2) years, 446/591 (75.5%) were males. Malaria was diagnosed in 270/591 (45.7%) patients. Most malaria patients were infected by Plasmodium falciparum (140/270; 51.9%), while 121/270 (44.8%) were coinfected with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. Median follow-up was 29 days. Crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with concurrent malaria and COVID-19 had a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.69).DiscussionCoinfection with COVID-19 and malaria is associated with increased all-cause in-hospital mortality compared to monoinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).