Efficacy,immunogenicity, and safety of available vaccines in children on biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics. Response to immunizations in this group is not well known.ObjectiveA systematic review was performed to evaluate three primary outcomes: efficacy; immunogenicity; and safety of vaccines in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.MethodsThe protocol for our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered and published with PROSPERO. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for studies published from 2009 to 2019, focusing on vaccinations in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.ResultsWe retrieved 532 records. Thirty-one full-text articles were selected, and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found. Efficacy: limited data are available regarding the efficacy of vaccination, as most studies have focused on immunogenicity as surrogate outcome for efficacy. Immunogenicity: patients receiving anti-TNF-alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of poor seroconversion (p = 0.028) and seroprotection by the serotype B influenza vaccine [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) p = 0.013; juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) p = 0.004]. We found adequate responses with H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes. Few studies existed for pneumococcal, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, varicella-zoster virus, Measles Mumps Rubella virus, and multiple vaccine administration. Safety: vaccine administration was not associated with serious side effects, but JIA patients on anti-TNF alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of presenting with myalgia or arthralgia postinfluenza vaccine (p = 0.014).ConclusionsMore evidence concerning efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccinations is needed to guide physicians in the vaccine decision process for this pediatric population.     

Antigenic cartography using sera from sequence-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern infections reveals antigenic divergence of Omicron

1. Download : Download high-res image (182KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Optimal Respiratory Syncytial Virus intervention programmes using Nirsevimab in England and Wales

IntroductionRespiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a major cause of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRI) in infants. There are no licensed vaccines and only one monoclonal antibody available to protect infants from disease. A new and potentially longer-lasting monoclonal antibody, Nirsevimab, showed promising results in phase IIb/III trials. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nirsevimab intervention programmes in England and Wales.MethodsWe used a dynamic model for RSV transmission, calibrated to data from England and Wales. We considered a suite of potential Nirsevimab programmes, including administration to all neonates (year-round); only neonates born during the RSV season (seasonal); or neonates born during the RSV season plus infants less than six months old before the start of the RSV season (seasonal + catch-up).ResultsIf administered seasonally to all infants at birth, we found that Nirsevimab would have to be priced at £63 or less per dose for at least 50% certainty that it could cost-effectively replace the current Palivizumab programme, using an ICER threshold of £20,000/QALY. An extended seasonal programme which includes a pre-season catch-up becomes the optimal strategy at a purchasing price of £32/dose or less for at least 50% certainty. At a purchasing price per dose of £5-32, the annual implementation costs of a seasonal programme could be as high as £2 million before a switch to a year-round strategy would be optimal.DiscussionNirsevimab has the potential to be cost-effective in England and Wales not only for use in high-risk infants.     

Tocilizumab en el tratamiento del rechazo humoral crónico activo resistente a terapia estándar

IntroductionThere is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment for chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR). Recent studies suggest that treatment with tocilizumab (TCZ) may stabilize graft function, decrease the intensity of donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSAs) and reduce inflammation of microcirculation.Patients and methodsObservational study with renal allograft recipients diagnosed with cAMR (n = 5) who had not submitted a response to traditional treatment based on the combination of plasma replacements, immunoglobulins, and rituximab. Patients were told to be treated with TCZ as compassionate use in six doses per month (8 mg/kg/month). Renal function, proteinuria, and the intensity of DSAs were monitored during follow-up.ResultsFive patients, average age 60 ± 13 years, three male and two retrasplants (cPRA average 55%) with preformed DSAs. Treatment with TCZ was initiated within 47 ± 52 days of biopsy. In two cases treatment was discontinued after the first dose, by severe bicitopenia with cytomegalovirus viremia and by graft failure, respectively. In the three patients who completed treatment, no stability of renal function (serum creatinine from 1.73 ± 0.70 to 2.04 ± 0.52 mg/dL, e-FGR 4 6 ± 15 to 36 ± 16 mL/min), showed increased proteinuria (3.2 ± 4.0 to 6.9 ± 11.0 g/g) and the intensity of DSAs maintain stable. No changes were observed in the degree of inflammation of microcirculation (g + pt 4.2 ± 0.8 vs. 4.3 ± 1.0) or in the degree of transplant glomerulopathy (cg 1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.8 ± 1.0).ConclusionsTCZ therapy does not appear to be effective in modifying the natural history of chronic active antibody-mediated rejection, does not improve the degree of inflammation of microcirculation and does not reduces the intensity of DSAs.     

Clinical efficacy of bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies on bone mineral density following skeletal fractures

BackgroundBisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies are drugs primarily developed to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are used to treat an array of skeletal pathologies. Their use is aimed at increasing bone health and therefore reducing fracture risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bone protection therapy on improving bone mineral density (BMD) in patients following a fracture.MethodsInclusion criteria consisted of patients who sustained a skeletal fracture and were subsequently commenced on bone protection therapy. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were performed at baseline and following a consented period of drug therapy. Bone health data included T-Scores, Z-Scores, FRAX Major, FRAX Hip and BMD. The clinical effectiveness of four bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate and zoledronate) and one monoclonal antibody (denosumab) were evaluated.ResultsA total of 100 patients were included in the study. Overall, bone protection therapy significantly improved Z-score Hip, Z-score Spine, T-score Spine and BMD Spine (p < 0.05). There was a marked difference between drug therapies. Denosumab and zoledronate were associated with the greatest treatment effect size. Alendronate only improved Z-score Spine and Z-score Hip (p < 0.05). Pamidronate and risedronate did not demonstrate any statistically significant improvement across any DEXA parameter.ConclusionOverall, bisphosphonates/monoclonal antibodies confer beneficial effects on bone health as measured by DEXA scans in patients following skeletal fractures. However, the magnitude of improvement varies among the commonly used drugs. Alendronate, zoledronate and denosumab were associated with greatest therapeutic benefit. Bone protection therapy did not improve fracture risk of patients (FRAX scores).     

The magnitude and timing of recalled immunity after breakthrough infection is shaped by SARS-CoV-2 variants

1. Download : Download high-res image (134KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Detection of recombinant and endogenous mouse melatonin receptors by monoclonal antibodies targeting the C‐terminal domain

Melatonin receptors play important roles in the regulation of circadian and seasonal rhythms, sleep, retinal functions, the immune system, depression, and type 2 diabetes development. Melatonin receptors are approved drug targets for insomnia, non‐24‐hour sleep‐wake disorders, and major depressive disorders. In mammals, two melatonin receptors (MTRs) exist, MT₁ and MT₂, belonging to the G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily. Similar to most other GPCRs, reliable antibodies recognizing melatonin receptors proved to be difficult to obtain. Here, we describe the development of the first monoclonal antibodies (mABs) for mouse MT₁ and MT₂. Purified antibodies were extensively characterized for specific reactivity with mouse, rat, and human MT₁ and MT₂ by Western blot, immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescence, and proximity ligation assay. Several mABs were specific for either mouse MT₁ or MT₂. None of the mABs cross‐reacted with rat MTRs, and some were able to react with human MTRs. The specificity of the selected mABs was validated by immunofluorescence microscopy in three established locations (retina, suprachiasmatic nuclei, pituitary gland) for MTR expression in mice using MTR‐KO mice as control. MT₂ expression was not detected in mouse insulinoma MIN6 cells or pancreatic beta‐cells. Collectively, we report the first monoclonal antibodies recognizing recombinant and native mouse melatonin receptors that will be valuable tools for future studies.