Immunogenicity of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Vaccine among Lung Transplant Recipients-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Two doses of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines elicit an attenuated humoral immune response among immunocompromised patients. Our study aimed to assess the immunogenicity of a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine among lung transplant recipients (LTRs). We prospectively evaluated the humoral response by measuring anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies in 139 vaccinated LTRs ~4-6 weeks following the third vaccine dose. The t-cell response was evaluated by IFNγ assay. The primary outcome was the seropositivity rate following the third vaccine dose. Secondary outcomes included: positive neutralizing antibody and cellular immune response rate, adverse events, and COVID-19 infections. Results were compared to a control group of 41 healthcare workers. Among LTRs, 42.4% had a seropositive antibody titer, and 17.2% had a positive t-cell response. Seropositivity was associated with younger age (t = 3.736, p < 0.001), higher GFR (t = 2.355, p = 0.011), and longer duration from transplantation (t = -1.992, p = 0.024). Antibody titer positively correlated with neutralizing antibodies (r = 0.955, p < 0.001). The current study may suggest the enhancement of immunogenicity by using booster doses. Since monoclonal antibodies have limited effectiveness against prevalent sub-variants and LTRs are prone to severe COVID-19 morbidity, vaccination remains crucial for this vulnerable population.

Secondary bacterial infection in COVID-19 patients is a stronger predictor for death compared to influenza patients.

Secondary bacterial infections are a potentially fatal complication of influenza infection. We aimed to define the impact of secondary bacterial infections on the clinical course and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients by comparison with influenza patients. COVID-19 (n = 642) and influenza (n = 742) patients, admitted to a large tertiary center in Israel and for whom blood or sputum culture had been taken were selected for this study. Bacterial culture results, clinical parameters, and death rates were compared. COVID-19 patients had higher rates of bacterial infections than influenza patients (12.6% vs. 8.7%). Notably, the time from admission to bacterial growth was longer in COVID-19 compared to influenza patients (4 (1-8) vs. 1 (1-3) days). Late infections (> 48 h after admission) with gram-positive bacteria were more common in COVID-19 patients (28% vs. 9.5%). Secondary infection was associated with a higher risk of death in both patient groups 2.7-fold (1.22-5.83) for COVID-19, and 3.09-fold (1.11-7.38) for Influenza). The association with death remained significant upon adjustment to age and clinical parameters in COVID-19 but not in influenza infection. Secondary bacterial infection is a notable complication associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19 than influenza patients. Careful surveillance and prompt antibiotic treatment may benefit selected patients.

Abnormal liver tests in patients with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza - prognostic similarities and temporal disparities.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Abnormal liver tests are common in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but a possible direct role of the virus in liver injury and its association with short-term outcomes are controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the pattern of abnormal liver tests in patients with SARS-CoV-2 with those of patients infected with influenza, a non-hepatotropic respiratory virus, and their association with worse outcomes during hospitalisation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,737 hospitalised patients (865 with influenza and 872 with SARS-CoV-2) in a tertiary medical centre. We defined abnormal liver tests as alanine transaminase or aspartate transaminase ≥40 IU/ml at any time-point during hospitalisation. RESULTS: Abnormal liver tests were mild to moderate in most patients regardless of infection type, but the majority of patients with influenza had a transaminase peak earlier during hospitalisation compared with patients with SARS-CoV-2. Abnormal liver tests correlated with markers of severe disease in either influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infections, and were associated with death, occurring mainly in patients with severe liver test abnormalities (>200 IU/L) (38.7% and 60% of patients with influenza or SARS-CoV-2, respectively). In multivariate analysis, controlling for age, sex, lymphopaenia, and C-reactive protein, liver test abnormalities remained significantly associated with death for influenza (odds ratio 4.344; 95% CI 2.218-8.508) and SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio 3.898; 95% CI 2.203-6.896). These results were confirmed upon propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal liver tests during hospitalisation with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza infections are common, may differ in their time course, and reflect disease severity. They are associated with worse outcomes, mainly in patients with severe liver test abnormalities, regardless of infection type. LAY SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious global health pandemic, the causative agent of which is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Abnormal liver tests are common among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and are often associated with worse outcomes. Herein, we compare the pattern of abnormal liver tests and their association with disease severity between 2 major non-hepatotropic respiratory viruses: SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. We show that abnormal liver tests are common in both infections, may slightly differ in their kinetics, and are associated with worse outcomes, especially in patients with severe liver test abnormalities. These results strongly suggest that abnormal liver tests in SARS-CoV-2 patients reflect disease severity, rather than a virus-mediated direct liver injury, and should be closely followed in admitted patients.

Biopsy of breast cancer metastases: patient characteristics and survival.

BACKGROUND: Discordance in hormone receptors (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status between primary tumors and metastatic sites for breast cancer is well established. However, it is uncertain which patient-related factors lead to biopsy when metastases are suspected and whether having a biopsy impacts survival. METHODS: The medical charts of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients diagnosed January 2000-August 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. A biopsy was defined as a procedure where tissue was obtained and assessed for both HR and HER2. Both bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess patient characteristics related to biopsy and whether having a biopsy was associated with improved survival. RESULTS: Of 409 patients suspected of having MBC, 165 (40%) had a biopsy, and 34% of these had discordant HR or HER2 status when compared to the initial diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, having a biopsy was associated with: recurrence in years 2010-2014, disease-free interval of > =3 years, stage 0-IIA at presentation, suspected locoregional recurrence, being HR+/HER2-, or missing HR/HER2 at diagnosis. A similar multivariate analysis revealed that having a biopsy was associated with improved survival (HR = 0.67, p = 0.002). The association of biopsy and improved survival was noted in specific subgroups: patients with missing HR and HER2 data at initial diagnosis (p = 0.001), those without metastases in liver, lung or brain (p = 0.001), and being younger than 70 years old at recurrence (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Specific clinical factors were associated with biopsy at the time of suspected recurrence. Having a biopsy was associated with reduced mortality.

Physicians' Considerations for Repeat Biopsy in Patients With Recurrent Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A strong recommendation has been made to perform repeat biopsy for recurrent metastatic breast cancer (RMBC), to reconfirm the histologic features, and to assess for possible changes in hormone receptors (HRs) or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. The present study was undertaken to assess the documented and nondocumented factors affecting physicians' decisions to perform a repeat biopsy in patients with RMBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 410 patients with RMBC for whom recurrence had developed between January 2000 and August 2014. The demographic data and characteristics regarding early and metastatic disease were recorded. The written follow-up records were examined, seeking considerations for or against repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to determine the nondocumented reasons for repeat biopsy. RESULTS: A new biopsy was performed in 295 of 410 patients (72%). However, only 88 of the 295 patients (30%) had a documented reason for rebiopsy. The reason for not performing repeat biopsy was documented for only 1 of the 115 patients. The main documented consideration for rebiopsy was to obtain a new receptor status (recorded in 47 of 88 patients; 53%). The other recorded reasons were suspicion of a second primary, differential diagnosis of metastasis from a second primary, the time from early diagnosis, and patient desire. Significant, but undocumented, considerations for repeat biopsy were low stage at early diagnosis, year of recurrence, interval to recurrence, and site of recurrence. Only for 165 of 295 patients (56%) was the full HR and HER2 status from the new biopsy specimen obtained. CONCLUSION: Nondocumented factors influence physicians' decisions for referring patients for rebiopsy. This might reflect a low rate of patient involvement in their disease management and decision making.