Clinical evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a malaria endemic setting.

The levels of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination are poorly understood in African populations and is complicated by cross-reactivity to endemic pathogens as well as differences in host responsiveness. To begin to determine the best approach to minimize false positive antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 in an African population, we evaluated three commercial assays, namely Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody (Platelia), Quanterix Simoa Semi-Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Test (anti-Spike), and the GenScript cPass™ SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (cPass) using samples collected in Mali in West Africa prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. A total of one hundred samples were assayed. The samples were categorized in two groups based on the presence or absence of clinical malaria. Overall, thirteen out of one hundred (13/100) samples were false positives with the Bio-Rad Platelia assay and one of the same one hundred (1/100) was a false positive with the anti-Spike IgG Quanterix assay. None of the samples tested with the GenScript cPass assay were positive. False positives were more common in the clinical malaria group, 10/50 (20%) vs. the non-malaria group 3/50 (6%); p = 0.0374 using the Bio-Rad Platelia assay. Association between false positive results and parasitemia by Bio-Rad remained evident, after adjusting for age and sex in multivariate analyses. In summary, the impact of clinical malaria on assay performance appears to depend on the assay and/or antigen being used. A careful evaluation of any given assay in the local context is a prerequisite for reliable serological assessment of anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity.

Design of an observational multi-country cohort study to assess immunogenicity of multiple vaccine platforms (InVITE).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, and the World Health Oraganization (WHO) has granted emergency use listing to multiple vaccines. Studies of vaccine immunogenicity data from implementing COVID-19 vaccines by national immunization programs in single studies spanning multiple countries and continents are limited but critically needed to answer public health questions on vaccines, such as comparing immune responses to different vaccines and among different populations.

Phase Ib Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Dose Escalation Study of Polyphenon E in Patients with Barrett's Esophagus.

This study was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of the green tea-derived Polyphenon E (Poly E) in patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE). Subjects were randomized to a 6-month, twice daily (BID) oral treatment of placebo or Poly E (200, 400, or 600 mg). Endoscopic evaluation, including biopsies, was performed before and after treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate safety; secondary objectives investigated catechin accumulation and effects in clinical specimens. Of the 44 enrolled subjects, 11 received placebo, and 33 received Poly E. No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. The recommended phase II dose was 600 mg twice daily. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) in Poly E-treated subjects were grade I and II nausea, grade I belching, and grade I lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) elevation. No treatment-related AEs were reported in placebo-treated subjects, aside from grade I laboratory abnormalities. Pill counts and subject diaries were not consistently collected, and compliance was difficult to determine. However, on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis, there was a significant relationship between Poly E dose and esophageal EGCG level--mean changes (pmol/g) of 0.79 (placebo), 6.06 (200 mg), 35.67 (400 mg), and 34.95 (600 mg); P = 0.005. There was a possible relationship between Poly E dose and urine PGE-M concentration. In conclusion, Poly E was well-tolerated, and treatment with Poly E (400 and 600 mg) but not Poly E (200 mg) or placebo resulted in clinically relevant and detectable EGCG accumulation in the target organ, esophageal mucosa.

Effect of zileuton and celecoxib on urinary LTE4 and PGE-M levels in smokers.

COX-2 and 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO) use arachidonic acid for the synthesis of eicosanoids that have been implicated in carcinogenesis and cardiovascular disease. The ability of celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, to redirect arachidonic acid into the 5-LO pathway can potentially reduce its efficacy as a chemopreventive agent and increase the risk of cardiovascular complications. Levels of urinary prostaglandin E metabolite (PGE-M) and leukotriene E4 (LTE4), biomarkers of the COX and 5-LO pathways, are elevated in smokers. Here, we investigated the effects of zileuton, a 5-LO inhibitor, versus zileuton and celecoxib for 6 ± 1 days on urinary PGE-M and LTE4 levels in smokers. Treatment with zileuton led to an 18% decrease in PGE-M levels (P = 0.03); the combination of zileuton and celecoxib led to a 62% reduction in PGE-M levels (P < 0.001). Levels of LTE4 decreased by 61% in subjects treated with zileuton alone (P < 0.001) and were unaffected by the addition of celecoxib. Although zileuton use was associated with a small overall decrease in PGE-M levels, increased PGE-M levels were found in a subset (19 of 52) of subjects. Notably, the addition of celecoxib to the 5-LO inhibitor protected against the increase in urinary PGE-M levels (P = 0.03). In conclusion, zileuton was an effective inhibitor of 5-LO activity resulting in marked suppression of urinary LTE4 levels and possible redirection of arachidonic acid into the COX-2 pathway in a subset of subjects. Combining celecoxib and zileuton was associated with inhibition of both the COX-2 and 5-LO pathways manifested as reduced levels of urinary PGE-M and LTE4.

Biomarkers as surrogate endpoints in cancer trials.

OBJECTIVES: To define and discuss surrogate endpoint biomarkers, which are used in therapeutic trials as a substitute for the clinically meaningful "true" endpoint; and hence, may be used in answering cancer prevention questions in clinical trials evaluating drug/nutrient interventions for a number of common cancer sites. DATA SOURCES: Literature, research articles. CONCLUSION: Surrogate endpoint biomarkers offer greater efficiency in clinical studies because they may allow for the generation of useful results from studies that are of shorter duration using smaller numbers of study participants in clinical trials for treatment and prevention of cancer. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Continual changes in the science of cancer diagnosis and prevention demand rigorous scientific knowledge of the professional nurse to optimize the outcome of cancer prevention drug/agent development and the delivery of evidence-based care.