Endoxifen Concentration is Associated with Recurrence-Free Survival in Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Patients.

Purpose: The metabolism of tamoxifen is influenced by various cytochrome p450 enzymes, including CYP2D6 and CYP2C19, leading to variations in the levels of endoxifen, even with the same tamoxifen dosage. However, the clinical significance of endoxifen on the prognosis of breast cancer patients remains controversial. This study aimed to elucidate the relevance of endoxifen level to recurrence-free survival censored with tamoxifen discontinuation (RFSt), representing the RFS for tamoxifen itself, of breast cancer patients and determine a suitable cutoff for prognostication. Materials and Methods: The study included 478 breast cancer patients, and tamoxifen and its metabolites, including endoxifen, were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). An optimal cutoff was determined with maximally selected rank statistics. Survival analysis and Cox regression were conducted based on this cutoff. Results: An endoxifen level of 21.00 ng/mL was the optimal cutoff for prognostication. Survival analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in RFSt between the low endoxifen group (≤ 21.00 ng/mL) and high endoxifen group (> 21.00 ng/mL) (log-rank test, p=0.032). The 10-year probability of RFSt was 83.2% (95% CI, 77.0-89.9%) and 88.3% (95% CI, 83.3-93.5%) in the low and high endoxifen groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression indicated endoxifen concentration as a significant factor affecting prognosis, which was adjusted with other clinical characteristics. Conclusion: Endoxifen could serve as a marker for appropriate tamoxifen treatment, and an endoxifen cutoff of 21.00 ng/mL could be advantageous in prognostication. Based on this cutoff, therapeutic drug monitoring would benefit patients displaying a suboptimal concentration.

Age-Related Differences in Neutralizing Antibody Responses against SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Variants in 151 SARS-CoV-2-Naïve Metropolitan Residents Boosted with BNT162b2.

BACKGROUND: Although age negatively correlates with vaccine-induced immune responses, whether the vaccine-induced neutralizing effect against variants of concern (VOCs) substantially differs across age remains relatively poorly explored. In addition, the utility of commercial binding assays developed with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 for predicting the neutralizing effect against VOCs should be revalidated. METHODS: We analyzed 151 triple-vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals boosted with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). The study population was divided into young adults (age < 30), middle-aged adults (30 ≤ age < 60), and older adults (age ≥ 60). The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) titers against Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants were compared across age. Antibody titers measured with commercial binding assays were compared with PRNT titers. RESULTS: Age-related decline in neutralizing titers was observed for both Delta and Omicron variants. Neutralizing titers for Omicron were lower than those against Delta in all ages. The multiple linear regression model demonstrated that duration from third dose to sample collection and vaccine types were also significant factors affecting vaccine-induced immunity along with age. The correlation between commercial binding assays and PRNT was acceptable for all age groups with the Delta variant, but relatively poor for middle-aged and older adults with the Omicron variant due to low titers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the age-related dynamics of vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, corroborating the need for age-specific vaccination strategies in the endemic era where new variants continue to evolve. Moreover, commercial binding assays should be used cautiously when estimating neutralizing titers against VOCs, particularly Omicron.

No Significant Differences in Presepsin Levels According to the Causative Microorganism of Bloodstream Infection.

BACKGROUND: CD14 recognizes lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and presepsin is a fragment of soluble CD14. Still, it remains uncertain whether Gram-negative bacteria induce higher presepsin levels than other microorganisms. To address this question, this study aimed to analyze presepsin levels based on microorganisms isolated in blood cultures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a single-center study comprising suspected sepsis patients enrolled from July 2020 to September 2020. A total of 95 patients with a single isolate confirmed in blood culture were analyzed to evaluate if there are any differences in presepsin levels according to microbial isolates. Plasma presepsin level was measured using PATHFAST assay kit and analyzer (LSI Medience Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). RESULTS: There were 26 Gram-positive bacteremia, 65 Gram-negative bacteremia, and 3 fungemia patients with median presepsin levels of 869, 1,439, and 11,951 pg/mL, respectively. Besides, one case of algaemia demonstrated a presepsin level of 1,231 pg/mL. Our results showed no statistically significant difference in presepsin levels among patients with Gram-positive bacteremia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and fungemia. Furthermore, presepsin levels did not differ significantly among bloodstream infections caused by bacteria that were isolated from at least three different patients. In particular, Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis were able to induce presepsin levels comparable to those induced by Gram-negative bacteria. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that there were no significant differences in plasma presepsin levels according to microbial isolates in blood culture. The major cause of the variability in presepsin levels during bloodstream infection might be the immunogenicity of each microorganism rather than the presence of LPS in the microorganism.

Clinical utility of quantitative immunoassays and surrogate virus neutralization tests for predicting neutralizing activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 variants.

Developing new antibody assays for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is challenging. SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT) targeting Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 have been devised, but their performance needs to be validated in comparison with quantitative immunoassays. First, using 1749 PRNT-positive sera, we noticed that log-transformed optical density (OD) ratio of wild-type (WT) sVNT exhibited better titer-correlation with plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) than % inhibition value. Second, we tried 798 dilutional titration tests with 103 sera, but nonlinear correlation between OD ratio and antibody concentration limited titration of sVNT. Third, the titer-correlations of two sVNT kits for BA.1 and two quantitative immunoassays for WT were evaluated with BA.1 and BA.5 PRNT. All tested kits exhibited a linear correlation with PRNT titers, but the sVNT kits exhibited high false-negative rates (cPass-BA.1 kit, 45.4% for BA.1 and 44.2% for BA.5; STANDARD F-BA.1 kit, 1.9% for BA.1 and 2.2% for BA.5), while quantitative immunoassays showed 100% sensitivity. Linear mixed-effects model suggested superior titer-correlation with PRNT for quantitative immunoassays compared to sVNT kits. Taken together, the use of quantitative immunoassays for WT, rather than rapid development of new kits, would be practical for predicting neutralizing activities against emerging new variants.