Prospective Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Responses Across a Broad Spectrum of Immunocompromising Conditions: the COVID-19 Vaccination in the Immunocompromised Study (COVICS).

BACKGROUND: We studied humoral responses after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination across varying causes of immunodeficiency. METHODS: Prospective study of fully vaccinated immunocompromised adults (solid organ transplant [SOT], hematologic malignancy, solid cancers, autoimmune conditions, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]) versus nonimmunocompromised healthcare workers (HCWs). The primary outcome was the proportion with a reactive test (seropositive) for immunoglobulin G to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of antibody levels and their correlation with pseudovirus neutralization titers. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1271 participants enrolled: 1099 immunocompromised and 172 HCW. Compared with HCW (92.4% seropositive), seropositivity was lower among participants with SOT (30.7%), hematological malignancies (50.0%), autoimmune conditions (79.1%), solid tumors (78.7%), and HIV (79.8%) (P < .01). Factors associated with poor seropositivity included age, greater immunosuppression, time since vaccination, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or adenovirus vector vaccines versus messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Moderna). mRNA-1273 was associated with higher antibody levels than BNT162b2 or adenovirus vector vaccines after adjusting for time since vaccination, age, and underlying condition. Antibody levels were strongly correlated with pseudovirus neutralization titers (Spearman r = 0.89, P < .0001), but in seropositive participants with intermediate antibody levels, neutralization titers were significantly lower in immunocompromised individuals versus HCW. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines were lowest among SOT and anti-CD20 monoclonal recipients, and recipients of vaccines other than mRNA-1273. Among those with intermediate antibody levels, pseudovirus neutralization titers were lower in immunocompromised patients than HCWs. Additional SARS-CoV-2 preventive approaches are needed for immunocompromised persons, which may need to be tailored to the cause of immunodeficiency.

Asking for what she needs? Pregnancy testing or EC?

BACKGROUND: When used within 5 days of unprotected sex, emergency contraception (EC) can reduce the risk of pregnancy. Our objective was to explore how often women seeking clinic-based pregnancy testing who do not desire pregnancy might benefit from EC and examine variables associated with patients asking for EC when use is indicated. STUDY DESIGN: Women seeking pregnancy testing or EC from an inner-city Title-X-funded family planning clinic between January 2011 and June 2012 were invited to complete surveys. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent (n=79) of respondents were seeking EC, and 73% (n=215) were seeking pregnancy testing. Of those seeking pregnancy testing, 39% might have benefited from same-day use of EC pills. Women who had never used EC and who had more than one episode of unprotected sex within the past month were less likely to request EC when use was indicated, while single women were more likely to request EC. CONCLUSIONS: Counseling regarding EC options is particularly important for women seeking same-day pregnancy testing who do not desire pregnancy.

Insight into the treatment of vulvar pain: a survey of clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine practice patterns among clinicians who frequently treat patients with vulvar pain syndromes. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to providers in the United States whose names were on a referral list of clinicians that care for women with vulvar pain (National Vulvodynia Association, Silver Springs, MD). The survey included 2 clinical vignettes. Clinicians were asked to report what treatments they would use to treat women with generalized vulvodynia and localized vulvodynia. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. A comparison of categoric data was accomplished with the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Surveys were mailed to 327 providers; 167 completed surveys were returned, for an overall response rate of 51%. The most commonly used treatment for vulvodynia was tricyclic antidepressants. There was no difference in the use of physical therapy, estrogens, injected or topical steroids, interferon, or laser therapy to treat generalized and localized vulvodynia. Respondents were more likely to use tricyclic antidepressants (P < .001), gabapentin (P < .001), and psychiatric care (P < .001) and less likely to use local anesthesia (P < .001) and vestibulectomy (P = .007) for the clinical scenario that represented generalized vulvodynia than they were for the scenario that represented localized vulvodynia. Most clinicians reported screening for vaginal infections, and many clinicians perform colposcopy and/or vulvar biopsy. Respondents recommend a variety of lifestyle modifications in the treatment of vulvodynia. CONCLUSION: Clinicians use a wide variety of treatments for vulvar pain and use different therapies for variants of vulvodynia.

Pre-emptive analgesia in gynecologic surgical procedures: preoperative wound infiltration with ropivacaine in patients who undergo laparotomy through a midline vertical incision.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that local anesthetic that is injected before a vertical midline abdominal incision would decrease the use of postoperative opioids. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who would undergo abdominal surgical procedures with general anesthesia by a planned vertical midline incision were enrolled in the study. Patients were assigned randomly to receive either 0.5% ropivacaine or normal saline solution placebo that was injected in the subcuticular tissue and fascia before the incision of each. All patients received morphine after the operation with a patient-controlled analgesia device. Morphine consumption was measured during the postoperative period at intervals of 0 to 6 hours, 6 to 12 hours, 12 to 24 hours, and 24 to 48 hours. Postoperative pain was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after the conclusion of the procedure with a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were enrolled in the study; 16 patients were excluded; therefore, 68 patients had useable data. The two treatment groups did not differ in age, height, weight, the length of the operation, the length of the incision, the position of the incision, the placement of drains, or the procedure that was performed. There was no significant difference in morphine consumption for any of the four intervals. The visual analog scale was not significantly different between the two groups at 6, 12, or 24 hours after operation. The visual analog scale at 48 hours was lower in the group that received ropivacaine (2.69 vs 4.26, P =.02). Data were analyzed by the Student t test. CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive analgesia with 0.5% ropivacaine given before skin incision does not decrease the postoperative analgesic use in patients who undergo laparotomy by a midline vertical skin incision.