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.     

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.     

Dry eye in chronic stroke patients with hemiplegia: A cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT

Objective: Dry eye is reported to be associated with several neurological diseases. The aim of this study is to evaluate the patients with hemiplegia after stroke for dry eye and compare their results with a control group.

Materials and methods: Forty-five patients with hemiplegia and 45 individuals as the control group were included in the study. Tear function tests (Schirmer and tear breakup time) and a dry eye questionnaire for dry eye symptoms (ocular surface disease index) were performed and the results of the two groups were compared.

Results: Schirmer test results were significantly lower in the post-stroke hemiplegia group compared to the control group (11.3 ± 8.2 mm and 20.6 ± 11.6 mm, respectively, p < .001). Tear breakup time results were significantly lower in the post-stroke hemiplegia group compared to the control group (7.9 ± 3.1 s and 12.1 ± 4.3 s, respectively, p < .001). Ocular surface disease index scores were not significantly different between hemiplegia and control groups (21.6 ± 20.0 and 19.8 ± 13.9, respectively, p = .635). Schirmer scores lower than 10 mm (60% and 30%, p < .001) and tear breakup time results lower than 10 s (65.6% and 28.9%, p < .001) were also higher in the hemiplegia group compared to control group.

Conclusion: We found lower Schirmer test and tear breakup time results and similar OSDI scores in hemiplegia patients compared to controls. Hemiplegia patients may have dry eye without typical symptoms. This should be taken into consideration in the follow-up and rehabilitation of post-stroke hemiplegia patients.