Efficacy and Safety of BCG Revaccination With M. bovis BCG Moscow to Prevent COVID-19 Infection in Health Care Workers: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

The Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, which is widely used to protect children against tuberculosis, can also improve immune response against viral infections. This unicentric, randomized-controlled clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of revaccination with BCG Moscow in reducing the positivity and symptoms of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. HCWs who had negative COVID-19 IgM and IgG and who dedicated at least eight hours per week in facilities that attended to individuals suspected of having COVID-19 were included in the study and were followed for 7, 15, 30, 60, and 180 days by telemedicine. The HCWs were randomly allocated to a revaccinated with BCG group, which received the BCG vaccine, or an unvaccinated group. Revaccination with BCG Moscow was found to be safe, and its efficacy ranged from 30.0% (95.0%CI -78.0 to 72.0%) to 31.0% (95.0%CI -74.0 to 74.0%). Mycobacterium bovis BCG Moscow did not induce NK cell activation at 15-20 days post-revaccination. As hypothesized, revaccination with BCG Moscow was associated with a lower incidence of COVID-19 positivity, though the results did not reach statistical significance. Further studies should be carried out to assess whether revaccination with BCG is able to protect HCWs against COVID-19. The protocol of this clinical trial was registered on August 5th, 2020, at REBEC (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, RBR-4kjqtg - ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4kjqtg/1) and the WHO (# U1111-1256-3892). The clinical trial protocol was approved by the Comissão Nacional de ética de pesquisa- CONEP (CAAE 31783720.0.0000.5078).

BCG revaccination of health workers in Brazil to improve innate immune responses against COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The BCG vaccine, widely used in Brazil in new-borns, induces adjuvant protection for several diseases, including childhood virus infections. BCG activates monocytes and innate memory NK cells which are crucial for the antiviral immune response. Therefore, strategies to prevent COVID-19 in health workers (HW) should be carried out to prevent them becoming unwell so that they can continue to work during the pandemic. The hypothesis is that BCG will improve the innate immune response and prevent symptomatic infection or COVID-19 severity. The primary objective is to verify the effectiveness and safety of the BCG vaccine to prevent or reduce incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the city of Goiânia (Brazil) among HW previously vaccinated with BCG and also its severity and mortality during the pandemic of the disease. Secondary objectives are to estimate the incidence of COVID-19 among these professionals and the innate immune response elicited to BCG. TRIAL DESIGN: This a phase II trial for repositioning BCG as a preventive strategy against COVID-19. The trial is an open-label, parallel-group randomised clinical trial, comparing HW vaccinated with BCG and HW not vaccinated. PARTICIPANTS: The trial will recruit 800 HW of Goiânia - Goiás, Brazil to reach a total of 400 HW included after comorbidities questioning and laboratorial evaluation. Eligibility criteria: Any HW presenting BCG vaccination scar with direct contact with suspected COVID-19 patients for at least 8 hours per week, whether in hospital beds, ICU, or in transportation or admission (nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, nutritionists, receptionists, etc.) who have negative IgM and IgG COVID-19 test. Participants with any of the following characteristics will be excluded: - Have had in the last fifteen days any signs or symptoms of virus infection, including COVID-19; - Have had fever in the last fifteen days; - Have been vaccinated fifteen days before the inclusion; - Have a history or confirmation of any immunosuppressive disease such as HIV, presented solid tumour in the last two years or autoimmune diseases; - Are under preventive medication with antibiotics, steroid anti-inflammatories, or chemotherapy; - Have less than 500 neutrophils per mL of blood; - Have previously been diagnosed with tuberculosis; - Are breastfeeding or pregnant; - Are younger than 18 years old; - Are participating as an investigator in this clinical trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: HW will be randomized into the BCG vaccinated group or the BCG unvaccinated control group. The BCG vaccinated group will receive in the right arm, intradermally, a one off dose of 0.1 mL corresponding to approximately 2 x105 to 8 x105 CFU of live, freeze-dried, attenuated BCG Moscow 361-I, Bacillus Calmette Guerin vaccine (Serum Institute of India PVT. LTD.). The unvaccinated control group will not be vaccinated. The HW allocated in both groups will be followed up at specific times points until 180 days post inclusion. The vaccinated and control groups will be compared according to COVID-19 related outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes are the incidence coefficient of infection by SARS-CoV-2 determined by RT-PCR of naso-oropharyngeal swab specimen or rapid lateral flow IgG and IgM test, and presence of general COVID-19 symptoms, disease severity and admission to hospital during the 180 days of follow up. The secondary outcome is the innate immune response elicited 15-20 days after vaccination. RANDOMISATION: The vaccine vial contains approximately 10 doses. In order to optimize the vaccine use, the randomisation was performed in blocks of 20 participants using the platform randomization.com [ http://www.jerrydallal.com/random/permute.htm ]. The randomization was prepared before any HW inclusion. The results were printed and inserted in sealed envelopes that were numbered with BCG-001 to BCG-400. The printed results as well the envelopes had the same numbers. At the time of the randomisation, each participant that meets the inclusion criteria will receive a consecutive participant number [BCG-001-BCG-400]. The sealed envelope with the assigned number, blinded to the researchers, will be opened in front of the participant and the arm allocation will be known. BLINDING (MASKING): There is no masking for the participants or for the healthcare providers. The study will be blinded to the laboratory researchers and to those who will be evaluating the outcomes and performing the statistical analyses. In this case, only the participant identification number will be available. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Four hundred heath workers will be randomised in two groups. Two hundred participants will be vaccinated, and 200 participants will not be vaccinated. TRIAL STATUS: The protocol approved by the Brazilian Ethical Committee is the seventh version, number CAAE: 31783720.0.0000.5078. The trial has been recruiting since September 20th, 2020. The clinical trial protocol was registered on August 5th, 2020. It is estimated that recruitment will finish by March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol number was registered on August 5th, 2020 at REBEC (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos). Register number: RBR-4kjqtg and WHO trial registration number UTN: U1111-1256-3892. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

A workshop on asthma management programs and centers in Brazil: reviewing and explaining concepts.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a workshop regarding asthma management programs and centers (AMPCs) in Brazil, so that they can be used as a tool for the improvement and advancement of current and future AMPCs. METHODS: The workshop consisted of five presentations and the corresponding group discussions. The working groups discussed the following themes: implementation of asthma management strategies; human resources needed for AMPCs; financial resources needed for AMPCs; and operational maintenance of AMPCs. RESULTS: The workshop involved 39 participants, from all regions of the country, representing associations of asthma patients (n = 3), universities (n = 7), and AMPCs (n = 29). We found a direct relationship between a lack of planning and the failure of AMPCs. Based on the experiences reported during the workshop, the common assumptions about AMPCs in Brazil were the importance of raising awareness of managers; greater community participation; interdependence between primary care and specialized care; awareness of regionalization; and use of medications available in the public health system. CONCLUSIONS: Brazil already has a core of experience in the area of asthma management programs. The implementation of strategies for the management of chronic respiratory disease and their incorporation into health care system protocols would seem to be a natural progression. However, there is minimal experience in this area. Joint efforts by individuals with expertise in AMPCs could promote the implementation of asthma management strategies, thus speeding the creation of treatment networks, which might have a multiplier effect, precluding the need for isolated centers to start from zero.

OBJETIVO: Relatar os resultados de uma oficina de trabalho sobre programas e centros de atenção a asmáticos (PCAAs) no Brasil para que possam servir como instrumento para melhoria e avanço dos PCAAs existentes e criação de novos. MÉTODOS: A oficina de trabalho constituiu-se de cinco apresentações e discussões em grupos. Os grupos de trabalho discutiram os seguintes temas: implementação de uma linha de cuidado em asma; recursos humanos necessários para os PCAA; recursos necessários para financiar os PCAA; e manutenção do funcionamento dos PCAAs. RESULTADOS: A oficina envolveu 39 participantes de todas as regiões do país, representando associações de asmáticos (n = 3), centros universitários (n = 7) e PCAAs (n = 29). Evidenciou-se uma relação direta entre a ausência de planejamento e o insucesso dos PCAAs. Com base nas experiências brasileiras elencadas durante a oficina, as premissas comuns foram a importância da sensibilização do gestor, maior participação da comunidade, interdependência entre a atenção primária e a especializada, observação da regionalização e utilização dos medicamentos disponíveis no sistema público de saúde. CONCLUSÕES: O Brasil já tem um núcleo de experiências na área programática da asma. A implementação de uma linha de cuidado em doenças respiratórias crônicas e sua inclusão nas redes de saúde parecem ser o caminho natural. Porém, a experiência nessa área ainda é pequena. Agregar pessoas com experiência nos PCAAs na elaboração da linha de cuidado em asma encurtaria tempo na criação de redes de atenção com possível efeito multiplicador, evitando que se partisse do zero em cada local isolado.

A workshop on asthma management programs and centers in Brazil: reviewing and explaining concepts / Programas e centros de atenção a asmáticos no Brasil; uma oficina de trabalho: revisitando e explicitando conceitos

Objective: To report the results of a workshop regarding asthma management programs and centers (AMPCs) in Brazil, so that they can be used as a tool for the improvement and advancement of current and future AMPCs. Methods: The workshop consisted of five presentations and the corresponding group discussions. The working groups discussed the following themes: implementation of asthma management strategies; human resources needed for AMPCs; financial resources needed for AMPCs; and operational maintenance of AMPCs. Results: The workshop involved 39 participants, from all regions of the country, representing associations of asthma patients (n = 3), universities (n = 7), and AMPCs (n = 29). We found a direct relationship between a lack of planning and the failure of AMPCs. Based on the experiences reported during the workshop, the common assumptions about AMPCs in Brazil were the importance of raising awareness of managers; greater community participation; interdependence between primary care and specialized care; awareness of regionalization; and use of medications available in the public health system. Conclusions: Brazil already has a core of experience in the area of asthma management programs. The implementation of strategies for the management of chronic respiratory disease and their incorporation into health care system protocols would seem to be a natural progression. However, there is minimal experience in this area. Joint efforts by individuals with expertise in AMPCs could promote the implementation of asthma management strategies, thus speeding the creation of treatment networks, which might have a multiplier effect, precluding the need for isolated centers to start from zero. .

Objetivo: Relatar os resultados de uma oficina de trabalho sobre programas e centros de atenção a asmáticos (PCAAs) no Brasil para que possam servir como instrumento para melhoria e avanço dos PCAAs existentes e criação de novos. Métodos: A oficina de trabalho constituiu-se de cinco apresentações e discussões em grupos. Os grupos de trabalho discutiram os seguintes temas: implementação de uma linha de cuidado em asma; recursos humanos necessários para os PCAA; recursos necessários para financiar os PCAA; e manutenção do funcionamento dos PCAAs. Resultados: A oficina envolveu 39 participantes de todas as regiões do país, representando associações de asmáticos (n = 3), centros universitários (n = 7) e PCAAs (n = 29). Evidenciou-se uma relação direta entre a ausência de planejamento e o insucesso dos PCAAs. Com base nas experiências brasileiras elencadas durante a oficina, as premissas comuns foram a importância da sensibilização do gestor, maior participação da comunidade, interdependência entre a atenção primária e a especializada, observação da regionalização e utilização dos medicamentos disponíveis no sistema público de saúde. Conclusões: O Brasil já tem um núcleo de experiências na área programática da asma. A implementação de uma linha de cuidado em doenças respiratórias crônicas e sua inclusão nas redes de saúde parecem ser o caminho natural. Porém, a experiência nessa área ainda é pequena. Agregar pessoas com experiência nos PCAAs na elaboração da linha de cuidado em asma encurtaria tempo na criação de redes de atenção com possível efeito multiplicador, evitando que se partisse do zero em cada local isolado. .

Hard metal pneumoconiosis with spontaneous bilateral pneumothorax.

Hard metal pneumoconiosis, first described in 1964, is a diffuse disease caused by the inhalation of cobalt particles. The disease can manifest as occupational asthma, interstitial disease or allergic alveolitis. We report the case of a young male, working as a tool sharpener, who presented with dry cough and progressive dyspnea for one year, as well as with spontaneous bilateral pneumothorax at admission. The diagnosis was confirmed by open lung biopsy.

Pneumoconiose por exposição a metal duro com pneumotórax bilateral espontâneo / Hard metal pneumoconiosis with spontaneous bilateral pneumothorax

A pneumoconiose por metal duro, descrita pela primeira vez em 1964, é uma doença difusa causada por inalação de partículas de cobalto. A doença pode se manifestar de três formas diferentes: asma ocupacional, doença intersticial e alveolite alérgica. Relata-se um caso de um jovem do sexo masculino, afiador de ferramentas, com quadro de tosse seca e dispnéia progressiva há um ano, apresentando-se à admissão com pneumotórax espontâneo bilateral. O diagnóstico foi confirmado através de biópsia pulmonar a céu aberto.

Hard metal pneumoconiosis, first described in 1964, is a diffuse disease caused by the inhalation of cobalt particles. The disease can manifest as occupational asthma, interstitial disease or allergic alveolitis. We report the case of a young male, working as a tool sharpener, who presented with dry cough and progressive dyspnea for one year, as well as with spontaneous bilateral pneumothorax at admission. The diagnosis was confirmed by open lung biopsy.