Serologic Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) have an increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), primarily attributed to the use of immunosuppressive drugs such as glucocorticoids, which may attenuate the response to vaccines. This meta-analysis assessed the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMIDs. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched on August 1, 2021, for observational studies. Data extracted included reference population, medications, vaccination, and proportion of patients achieving a serologic response. RESULTS: The analysis included 25 observational studies (5360 patients). Most of the studies used messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273), with a small number of studies including other types of vaccines (AZD1222, CoronaVac, BBV152, Ad26.COV2.S). Serologic response after 1 dose (6 studies) and 2 doses (17 studies) of mRNA vaccine were 73.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.7%-79.5%) and 83.4% (95% CI, 76.8%-88.4%), respectively. On meta-regression, anti-CD20 therapy was associated with lower response rates (P < .001) and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy also showed a trend toward lower response rates (P = .058). Patients with IMIDs were less likely to achieve a serologic response compared with controls after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine (6 studies; odds ratio, 0.086; 95% CI, 0.036-0.206; P < .001). There were not enough studies to assess response to the adenoviral or inactivated vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with IMIDs have a reduced response to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These results suggest that IMID patients receiving mRNA vaccines should complete the vaccine series without delay and support the strategy of providing a third dose of the vaccine.

Intraoperative Fluorescein Angiography Can Efficiently Identify Biomarkers and Guide Surgical Decision-Making.

PURPOSE: We sought to develop an efficient method for fluorescein angiography (FA) during digitally assisted vitreoretinal surgery (DAVS). METHODS: A 485-nm bandpass filter was placed into the filter holder of the accessory light sources of the Constellation Vision System with steel modified washers to produce an exciter source. A barrier filter was placed into the blank slot of a switchable laser filter with a 535-nm bandpass filter and another washer or created digitally with a specific color channel using NGENUITY software version 1.4. Fluorescein, 250 to 500 mg, was then injected intravenously during retinal surgery. RESULTS: These fluorescence patterns accurately detect many fluorescein angiography biomarkers, such as determination of vascular filling times, ischemia, neovascularization, shunt vessels, microaneurysms, and leakage into the vitreous. This enhanced surgical visualization permitted intervention in real time such as laser or diathermy to residual microvascular abnormalities after delamination of retinal neovascularization as well as heavier panretinal laser placement in areas of retinal capillary dropout to relatively preserve areas of more intact retinal microcirculation. CONCLUSION: The authors of this study are the first to report an efficient method that permits high-resolution detection of many classic FA biomarkers such as during DAVS to enhance surgical visualization and intervention in real time.

Cerebellar anaplastic ganglioglioma in a septuagenarian.

Ganglioglioma is a rare neoplasm most common in children and adolescents. It is typically located in the supratentorial compartment, with the temporal lobe being the most common tumor location. Anaplastic ganglioglioma is a WHO grade III ganglioglioma, a rare subtype accounting for a small minority of ganglioglioma cases. Posterior fossa anaplastic ganglioglioma in an adult is incredibly rare; only 3 prior cases have been reported. Only 1 adult anaplastic ganglioglioma in the cerebellum has been reported. We present the second reported adult cerebellar anaplastic ganglioglioma.

Serologic response following SARS-COV2 vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer have an increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and an attenuated responses to various vaccines. This meta-analysis aims to assess the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched on August 1, 2021 for studies that reported the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients. Random effects models were used to achieve pooled serologic response rates and odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We analyzed 16 observational studies with a total of 1453 patients with cancer. A majority of studies used mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). The proportion of patients achieving a serologic response after a single and two doses of COVID-19 vaccine were 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.0-66.9) and 87.7% (95% CI 82.5-91.5), respectively. Patients with hematologic cancers had a lower response rate after the second dose of vaccine compared to those with solid organ cancers (63.7% vs. 94.9%), which was attributable to the low response rates associated with certain conditions (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, lymphoma) and therapies (anti-CD20, kinase inhibitors). A lower proportion of patients with cancer achieved a serologic response compared to control patients after one and two doses of vaccine (OR0.073 [95% CI 0.026-0.20] and 0.10 [95% CI 0.039-0.26], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer, especially those with hematologic B-cell malignancies, have a lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines. The results suggest that cancer patients should continue to follow safety measures including mask-wearing after vaccination and suggest the need for additional strategies for prophylaxis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Serologic Response following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at greater risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and have attenuated response to vaccinations. In the present meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the serologic response to the COVID-19 vaccine in SOT recipients. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify SOT studies that reported the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccination. We analyzed 44 observational studies including 6158 SOT recipients. Most studies were on mRNA vaccination (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). After a single and two doses of vaccine, serologic response rates were 8.6% (95% CI 6.8-11.0) and 34.2% (95% CI 30.1-38.7), respectively. Compared to controls, response rates were lower after a single and two doses of vaccine (OR 0.0049 [95% CI 0.0021-0.012] and 0.0057 [95% CI 0.0030-0.011], respectively). A third dose improved the rate to 65.6% (95% CI 60.4-70.2), but in a subset of patients who had not achieved a response after two doses, it remained low at 35.7% (95% CI 21.2-53.3). In summary, only a small proportion of SOT recipients achieved serologic response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, and that even the third dose had an insufficient response. Alternative strategies for prophylaxis in SOT patients need to be developed. Key Contribution: In this meta-analysis that included 6158 solid organ transplant recipients, the serologic response to the COVID-19 vaccine was extremely low after one (8.6%) and two doses (34.2%). The third dose of the vaccine improved the rate only to 66%, and in the subset of patients who had not achieved a response after two doses, it remained low at 36%. The results of our study suggest that a significant proportion of solid organ transplant recipients are unable to achieve a sufficient serologic response after completing not only the two series of vaccination but also the third booster dose. There is an urgent need to develop strategies for prophylaxis including modified vaccine schedules or the use of monoclonal antibodies in this vulnerable patient population.

Perceptions of US Medical Students on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Mixed Methods Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Given the rapidity with which artificial intelligence is gaining momentum in clinical medicine, current physician leaders have called for more incorporation of artificial intelligence topics into undergraduate medical education. This is to prepare future physicians to better work together with artificial intelligence technology. However, the first step in curriculum development is to survey the needs of end users. There has not been a study to determine which media and which topics are most preferred by US medical students to learn about the topic of artificial intelligence in medicine. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to survey US medical students on the need to incorporate artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education and their preferred means to do so to assist with future education initiatives. METHODS: A mixed methods survey comprising both specific questions and a write-in response section was sent through Qualtrics to US medical students in May 2021. Likert scale questions were used to first assess various perceptions of artificial intelligence in medicine. Specific questions were posed regarding learning format and topics in artificial intelligence. RESULTS: We surveyed 390 US medical students with an average age of 26 (SD 3) years from 17 different medical programs (the estimated response rate was 3.5%). A majority (355/388, 91.5%) of respondents agreed that training in artificial intelligence concepts during medical school would be useful for their future. While 79.4% (308/388) were excited to use artificial intelligence technologies, 91.2% (353/387) either reported that their medical schools did not offer resources or were unsure if they did so. Short lectures (264/378, 69.8%), formal electives (180/378, 47.6%), and Q and A panels (167/378, 44.2%) were identified as preferred formats, while fundamental concepts of artificial intelligence (247/379, 65.2%), when to use artificial intelligence in medicine (227/379, 59.9%), and pros and cons of using artificial intelligence (224/379, 59.1%) were the most preferred topics for enhancing their training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that current US medical students recognize the importance of artificial intelligence in medicine and acknowledge that current formal education and resources to study artificial intelligence-related topics are limited in most US medical schools. Respondents also indicated that a hybrid formal/flexible format would be most appropriate for incorporating artificial intelligence as a topic in US medical schools. Based on these data, we conclude that there is a definitive knowledge gap in artificial intelligence education within current medical education in the US. Further, the results suggest there is a disparity in opinions on the specific format and topics to be introduced.