The Effects of Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine and Accelerated Dosing Scheduling on the Immunogenicity of the Chimeric Yellow Fever Derived Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine: A Phase II, Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Center Trial in Adults Aged 18 to 45 Years in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is a global health problem requiring an effective, safe dengue vaccine. METHODS: We report the results of a phase II, randomized, open-label, single-center trial in adults aged 18 to 45 years in the United States designed to explore the effects of the Chimeric Yellow Fever Derived Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine (CYD-TDV, Dengvaxia) when administered on its designated schedule (months 0, 6, and 12) or on an accelerated dosing schedule (months 0, 2, and 6) and/or given before, or concomitantly with, a vaccine against Japanese encephalitis (JE). RESULTS: Based on dengue virus serotype-specific neutralizing antibody (NAb), the accelerated dosing schedule was comparable to the 0, 6, and 12-month schedule. Giving JE vaccine concurrently with CYD-TDV did not result in an increase in overall NAb titers. Immunophenotyping of peripheral blood mononuclear cells revealed an increase in activated CD8+ T cells after CYD-TDV vaccination, a phenomenon that was greatest for the JE vaccine primed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an accelerated dosing schedule of CYD-TDV results in essentially equivalent dengue serotype-specific NAb titers as the currently used schedule, and there may be an early benefit in antibody titers and activated CD8+ T cells by the administration of the JE vaccine before CYD-TDV vaccination.

Measurable Residual Disease Monitoring in Lymphoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The utility of analyzing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and disease in the bone marrow as an adjunctive tool in caring for hematologic cancer patients is expanding. This holds true for lymphoma where these biomarkers are being explored as a means of genotyping and quantifying disease. Regarding the latter, they can be used to monitor measurable residual disease (MRD) during and after treatment. This holds potential for aiding clinical decisions amidst treatment, detecting earlier relapse, and improving prognostication. Here, we review the evidence to support these applications in a variety of lymphoma subtypes. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous clinical trials across a variety of lymphomas have demonstrated value in MRD monitoring. MRD monitoring is often prognostic for progression free survival (PFS) and even overall survival (OS) at several time points in a disease course, particularly when utilizing serial measurements. With regards to tailoring treatment, there are a growing number of trials examining MRD-adaptive treatment strategies to intensify or de-escalate treatment to individualize care. Lastly, MRD monitoring has been utilized successfully in detecting earlier relapse when compared to more standard methods of clinical surveillance such as radiographic assessment. Although not routinely implemented into clinical practice, MRD monitoring in lymphoma is helping shape the future landscape of this disease by aiding in prognostication, guiding therapy, and detecting earlier relapse. Steps to standardize and further examine this technology prospectively are being taken to bring MRD monitoring to the forefront of the field.

Comprehensive Analysis of Temperature in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Human body temperature is believed to be linked to clinical diagnoses. However, most of the available data stems from healthy individuals, with no large-scale studies addressing body temperature in the inpatient setting, which is the focus of our study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a total of 695,107 temperature readings from 16,245 patients hospitalized over a 1-year period at a tertiary medical center, ages 0-105 years, 50% female, with rectal, monotherm, axillary, oral, temporal and tympanic measurement sites. The average temperature (Tave) per patient and per measurement site was used in all calculations. Descriptive statistics, Student's t-test, and Pearson's correlation were used, where appropriate, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Tave from all measurement sites was 98.13 ± 0.48(SD)F(36.74 ± 0.27°C). Tave varied by the site of measurement, in decreasing order highest-to-lowest being rectal, monotherm, axillary, oral, temporal, and tympanic, all of which were higher than the available reported averages for healthy subjects. Tave decreased as patients' age increased. There was only slight and likely clinically insignificant difference between the sexes. There were differences in Tave between the intensive care units (ICUs), listed from highest-to-lowest: Neuro ICU, Pediatric ICU, Surgical ICU, Cardiac ICU and Medical ICU. However, there was no difference between all ICU and non-ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our inpatient data demonstrate that previously identified body temperature trends among healthy subjects are preserved, to an extent, in the inpatient setting. To our knowledge, ours is the first study that evaluates the temperatures of all hospitalized patients at a large tertiary medical center.

Normal Body Temperature: A Systematic Review.

PubMed was searched from 1935 to December 2017 with a variety of search phrases among article titles. The references of the identified manuscripts were then manually searched. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the paper presented data on measured normal body temperature of healthy human subjects ages 18 and older, (2) a prospective design was used, and (3) the paper was written in or translated into the English language. Thirty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. This comprised 9227 measurement sites from 7636 subjects. The calculated ranges (mean ± 2 standard deviations) were 36.32-37.76 (rectal), 35.76-37.52 (tympanic), 35.61-37.61 (urine), 35.73-37.41 (oral), and 35.01-36.93 (axillary). Older adults (age ≥60) had lower temperature than younger adults (age <60) by 0.23°C, on average. There was only insignificant gender difference. Compared with the currently established reference point for normothermia of 36.8°C, our means are slightly lower but the difference likely has no physiological importance. We conclude that the most important patient factors remain site of measurement and patient's age.