Effects of body mass index on the immune response within the first days after major stroke in humans.

INTRODUCTION: Immunological alterations associated with increased susceptibility to infection are an essential aspect of stroke pathophysiology. Several immunological functions of adipose tissue are altered by obesity and are accompanied by chronic immune activation. The purpose of this study was to examine immune function (monocytes, granulocytes, cytokines) as a function of body mass index (BMI: 1st group: 25; 2nd group: 25 BMI 30; 3rd group: 30) and changes in body weight post stroke. METHOD: Fat status was assessed using standardized weight measurements on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 after ischemic stroke in a cohort of 40 stroke patients and 16 control patients. Liver fat and visceral fat were assessed by MRI on day 1 or 2 [I] and on day 5 or 7 [II]. Leukocyte subpopulations in peripheral blood, cytokines, chemokines, and adipokine concentrations in sera were quantified. In a second cohort (stroke and control group, n = 17), multiple regression analysis was used to identify correlations between BMI and monocyte and granulocyte subpopulations. RESULTS: Weight and fat loss occurred from the day of admission to day 1 after stroke without further reduction in the postischemic course. No significant changes in liver or visceral fat were observed between MRI I and MRI II. BMI was inversely associated with IL-6 levels, while proinflammatory cytokines such as eotaxin, IFN-ß, IFN -γ and TNF-α were upregulated when BMI increased. The numbers of anti-inflammatory CD14+CD16+ monocytes and CD16+CD62L- granulocytes were reduced in patients with higher BMI values, while that of proinflammatory CD16dimCD62L+ granulocytes was increased. CONCLUSION: A small weight loss in stroke patients was detectable. The data demonstrate a positive correlation between BMI and a proinflammatory poststroke immune response. This provides a potential link to how obesity may affect the clinical outcome of stroke patients.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.

Correction: A computational reproducibility study of PLOS ONE articles featuring longitudinal data analyses.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251194.].

A computational reproducibility study of PLOS ONE articles featuring longitudinal data analyses.

Computational reproducibility is a corner stone for sound and credible research. Especially in complex statistical analyses-such as the analysis of longitudinal data-reproducing results is far from simple, especially if no source code is available. In this work we aimed to reproduce analyses of longitudinal data of 11 articles published in PLOS ONE. Inclusion criteria were the availability of data and author consent. We investigated the types of methods and software used and whether we were able to reproduce the data analysis using open source software. Most articles provided overview tables and simple visualisations. Generalised Estimating Equations (GEEs) were the most popular statistical models among the selected articles. Only one article used open source software and only one published part of the analysis code. Replication was difficult in most cases and required reverse engineering of results or contacting the authors. For three articles we were not able to reproduce the results, for another two only parts of them. For all but two articles we had to contact the authors to be able to reproduce the results. Our main learning is that reproducing papers is difficult if no code is supplied and leads to a high burden for those conducting the reproductions. Open data policies in journals are good, but to truly boost reproducibility we suggest adding open code policies.