RESUMEN
Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines comprising ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1) and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 subvariant elicit enhanced serum antibody responses to emerging Omicron subvariants. Here, we characterized the RBD-specific memory B cell (Bmem) response following a fourth dose with a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine, in direct comparison with a WH1 monovalent fourth dose. Healthcare workers previously immunized with mRNA or adenoviral vector monovalent vaccines were sampled before and one-month after a fourth dose with a monovalent or a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Serum neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were quantified, as well as RBD-specific Bmem with an in-depth spectral flow cytometry panel including recombinant RBD proteins of the WH1, BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 variants. Both bivalent vaccines elicited higher NAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to the monovalent vaccine. Following either vaccine type, recipients had slightly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem numbers. Both bivalent vaccines significantly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem binding of all Omicron subvariants tested by flow cytometry, while recognition of Omicron subvariants was not enhanced following monovalent vaccination. IgG1+ Bmem dominated the response, with substantial IgG4+ Bmem only detected in recipients of an mRNA vaccine for their primary dose. Thus, Omicron-based bivalent vaccines can significantly boost NAb and Bmem specific for ancestral WH1 and Omicron variants, and improve recognition of descendent subvariants by pre-existing, WH1-specific Bmem, beyond that of a conventional, monovalent vaccine. This provides new insights into the capacity of variant-based mRNA booster vaccines to improve immune memory against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and potentially protect against severe disease. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 boosters, used as a fourth dose, increase RBD-specific Bmem cross-recognition of Omicron subvariants, both those encoded by the vaccines and antigenically distinct subvariants, further than a monovalent booster.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use. METHODS: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies. CONCLUSION: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Consentimiento Informado , Humanos , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Femenino , COVID-19/prevención & control , Adulto Joven , Adolescente , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Vacunación , Inmunización Secundaria , ComunicaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: PWH aged ≥45âyears received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those <45âyears Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1â:â2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses and cytokine responses up to 180âdays post-vaccination. RESULTS: Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 ( N â=â35) or BNT162b2 ( N â=â5) following mRNA-based ( N â=â29) or vector-based ( N â=â11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs. 26% of non-PWH) and median 57âyears [interquartile range (IQR) 53-59]. Their median CD4 + T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511-965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was <50âcopies/ml in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28âdays post-vaccination was comparable between PWH [4.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24-6.19] and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42-4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180âdays, and T-cell responses up to 90âdays post-vaccination. Interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28âdays post-vaccination in PWH. CONCLUSION: A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90âdays in PWH compared to non-PWH.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Infecciones por VIH , Inmunización Secundaria , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Estudios Prospectivos , Infecciones por VIH/inmunología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Vacuna BNT162/inmunología , Vacuna BNT162/administración & dosificación , Países Bajos , Adulto , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Vacuna nCoV-2019 mRNA-1273/inmunología , Vacuna nCoV-2019 mRNA-1273/administración & dosificación , Citocinas/inmunología , AncianoRESUMEN
Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Inmunización Secundaria , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/virología , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/inmunología , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Femenino , Masculino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/inmunología , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/genética , Linfocitos T/inmunología , VacunaciónRESUMEN
Recently, the importance of efficient and effective health care has been recognized, especially during the acute phase of the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Intensive care units (ICUs) have faced an immense workload, with massive numbers of patients being treated in a very short period of time. In general, ICUs are required to deliver high-quality care at all times during the year. At the same time, high-quality organizational goals may not be aligned with the interests, motivation, and development of individual staff members (eg, nurses, and doctors). For management of the ICU, it is important to balance the organizational goals and development of the staff members ("their human capital"), usually referred to as human resource management. Although many studies have considered this area, no holistic view of the topic has been presented. Such a holistic view may help leadership and/or other stakeholders at the ICU to design a better learning health system. This pragmatic review aims to provide a conceptual model for the management of ICUs. Future research may also use this conceptual model for studying important factors for designing and understanding human resources in an ICU.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increasing pharmaceutical expenditure challenges the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare systems across Europe. Confidentiality restraints hinder assessment of actual prices of Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs). Hence, we assessed the real prices of brand-name OMPs around market exclusivity expiry (MEE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore developments in published list prices (LPs) and confidential hospital purchase prices (PPs) of brand-name OMPs relative to their market exclusivity status in Western European countries with similar GDPs. METHODS: We analyzed LPs and PPs of 13 selected OMPs purchased by university hospitals in Western European countries between 2000 and 2020. For confidentially reasons, proportions were used, with the Dutch LPs of the selected OMPs at the year of MEE serving as reference values. PPs included pre-purchase discounts. Rebates were not considered. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from hospitals in Denmark (DK) (n = 1), France (FR) (n = 1), Germany (DE) (n = 2), and the Netherlands (NL) (n = 1). Average LPs and PPs of included OMPs dropped gradually but limited over time, with no explicit price drop after MEE. LP levels differed more per country than PP levels: LP range before MEE was 164% (DE)-101% (FR) and after MEE was 135% (DE)-82% (FR); PP range before MEE was 150% (DE)-102% (FR) and after MEE was 107% (DE)-80% (FR). Overall differences between LPs and PPs were < 3% in all countries, except for Denmark. CONCLUSION: No evident price drops of included brand-name OMPs were observed around MEE and differences in purchase prices are modest in the selected Western European countries. Results were not subject to significance testing. More robust data are needed to strengthen negotiations with suppliers.
Asunto(s)
Lipopolisacáridos , Producción de Medicamentos sin Interés Comercial , Humanos , Costos de los Medicamentos , Europa (Continente) , FranciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines encoding the ancestral and omicron spike (S) protein were developed as a countermeasure against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the (variant-specific) immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA-based bivalent omicron (BA.1) vaccines in individuals who were primed with adenovirus-based or mRNA-based vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein. METHODS: We analysed results of the direct boost group of the SWITCH ON study, an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health-care workers from four academic hospitals in the Netherlands aged 18-65 years who had completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination regimen and received one booster of an mRNA-based vaccine, given no later than 3 months previously, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer software in block sizes of 16 and 24 to receive an omicron BA.1 bivalent booster straight away (direct boost group) or a bivalent omicron BA.5 booster, postponed for 90 days (postponed boost group), stratified by priming regimen. The BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost was given to participants younger than 45 years, and the mRNA-1273.214 boost was given to participants 45 years or older, as per Dutch guidelines. The direct boost group, whose results are presented here, were divided into four subgroups for analysis: (1) Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 (BioNTech-Pfizer) boost (Ad/P), (2) mRNA-based prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost (mRNA/P), (3) Ad26.COV2.S prime and mRNA-1273.214 (Moderna) boost (Ad/M), and (4) mRNA-based prime and mRNA-1273.214 boost (mRNA/M). The primary outcome was fold change in S protein S1 subunit-specific IgG antibodies before and 28 days after booster vaccination. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all participants except those who withdrew, had a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, or had a missing blood sample at day 0 or day 28. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05471440. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2 and Oct 4, 2022, 219 (50%) of 434 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the direct boost group; 187 participants were included in the primary analyses; exclusions were mainly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection between days 0 and 28. From the 187 included participants, 138 (74%) were female and 49 (26%) were male. 42 (22%) of 187 participants received Ad/P and 44 (24%) mRNA/P (those aged <45 years), and 45 (24%) had received Ad/M and 56 (30%) mRNA/M (those aged ≥45 years). S1-specific binding antibody concentrations increased 7 days after bivalent booster vaccination and remained stable over 28 days in all four subgroups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between day 0 and day 28 was 1·15 [95% CI 1·12-1·19] for the Ad/P group, 1·17 [1·14-1·20] for the mRNA/P group, 1·20 [1·17-1·23] for the Ad/M group, and 1·16 [1·13-1·19] for the mRNA/M group). We observed no significant difference in the GMR between the Ad/P and mRNA/P groups (p=0·51). The GMR appeared to be higher in the Ad/M group than in the mRNA/M group, but was not significant (p=0·073). Most side-effects were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 48 h in most individuals. INTERPRETATION: Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273.214 or BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 in adult healthcare workers resulted in a rapid recall of humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the priming regimen. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity at the population level, and simultaneously antigenic drift at the virus level, remains crucial to assess the necessity and timing of COVID-19 variant-specific booster vaccinations. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).
Asunto(s)
Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Países Bajos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Personal de Salud , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Vacunación , Anticuerpos NeutralizantesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies. METHODS: Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts 'handled' by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated. RESULTS: A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (p < 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, resulting in 62.4% resolved alerts, compared with 48.0% when no action was performed (p < 0.001). In the category renal function, the percentages differed significantly between an action versus no action of the pharmacist at day 1 and at day 3 (16.6% vs 10.6%, p < 0.001 [day 1]; 29.8% vs 19.4%, p < 0.001 [day 3]). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the pattern and natural course of clinical alerts of an in-hospital implemented CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. Besides the already known beneficial effect of actions by pharmacists, we have also shown that many alerts become resolved without any specific intervention. As such, our study provides an important insight into the spontaneous course of resolved alerts, since these data are currently lacking in the literature.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite enormous clinical improvements, due to better management strategies and the availability of biologicals, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) still have a significant impact on patients' lives. To further reduce disease burden, provider- as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be taken into account during treatment and follow-up. Web-based collection of these outcomes generates valuable repeated measurements, which could be used (1) in daily clinical practice for patient-centered care, including shared decision-making; (2) for research purposes; and (3) as an essential step toward the implementation of value-based health care (VBHC). Our ultimate goal is that our health care delivery system is completely aligned with the principles of VBHC. For aforementioned reasons, we implemented the IMID registry. OBJECTIVE: The IMID registry is a digital system for routine outcome measurement that mainly includes PROs to improve care for patients with IMIDs. METHODS: The IMID registry is a longitudinal observational prospective cohort study within the departments of rheumatology, gastroenterology, dermatology, immunology, clinical pharmacy, and outpatient pharmacy of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands. Patients with the following diseases are eligible for inclusion: inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uveitis, Behçet disease, sarcoidosis, and systemic vasculitis. Generic and disease-specific (patient-reported) outcomes, including adherence to medication, side effects, quality of life, work productivity, disease damage, and activity, are collected from patients and providers at fixed intervals before and during outpatient clinic visits. Data are collected and visualized through a data capture system, which is linked directly to the patients' electronic health record, which not only facilitates a more holistic care approach, but also helps with shared decision-making. RESULTS: The IMID registry is an ongoing cohort with no end date. Inclusion started in April 2018. From start until September 2022, a total of 1417 patients have been included from the participating departments. The mean age at inclusion was 46 (SD 16) years, and 56% of the patient population is female. The average percentage of filled out questionnaires at baseline is 84%, which drops to 72% after 1 year of follow-up. This decline may be due to the fact that the outcomes are not always discussed during the outpatient clinic visit or because the questionnaires were sometimes forgotten to set out. The registry is also used for research purposes and 92% of the patients with IMIDs gave informed consent to use their data for that. CONCLUSIONS: The IMID registry is a web-based digital system that collects provider- and PROs. The collected outcomes are used to improve care for the individual patient with an IMID and facilitate shared decision-making, and they are also used for research purposes. The measurement of these outcomes is an essential step toward the implementation of VBHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43230.
RESUMEN
Purpose: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, national and international societies have recommended continuing biological agents in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. However, adherence to biological treatment might decrease, because these recommendations contradict patients' beliefs. Especially an increased concern about side effects could have influenced the adherence to biological treatment during the first lockdown. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown on adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients. Patients and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, IMID patients who received a biological agent before and during the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown (March 2020- June 2020) were included. Patients were excluded if they did not complete the medication adherence report scale-5 (MARS-5) questionnaire at ≥1 visit before the lockdown and ≥1 visit during the lockdown. Adherence to biological treatment was measured with the MARS-5 and Medication Possession Ratio (MPR). Results: We included 157 IMID patients. The percentage of adherent patients, defined as MARS-5 score >21, was significantly lower during the lockdown compared to the period before the lockdown (88.5% vs 84.1%, p<0.001). Additionally, the overall percentage of adherent patients during the lockdown based on the MPR ≥90% was significantly lower compared to adherence based upon the MARS-5 (65.1% vs 84.1%, p<0.001). Conclusion: This study showed that the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown negatively impacts adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients. Therefore, treating physicians should be aware of this problem to minimize the potential harmful effects of non-adherence.
RESUMEN
The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants led to the recommendation of booster vaccinations after Ad26.COV2.S priming. It was previously shown that heterologous booster vaccination induces high antibody levels, but how heterologous boosters affect other functional aspects of the immune response remained unknown. Here, we performed immunological profiling of Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals before and after homologous or heterologous (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) booster. Booster vaccinations increased functional antibodies targeting ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants. Especially heterologous booster vaccinations induced high levels of functional antibodies. In contrast, T-cell responses were similar in magnitude following homologous or heterologous booster vaccination and retained cross-reactivity towards variants. Booster vaccination led to a minimal expansion of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell clones and no increase in the breadth of the T-cell repertoire. In conclusion, we show that Ad26.COV2.S priming vaccination provided a solid immunological base for heterologous boosting, increasing humoral and cellular responses targeting emerging variants of concern.
RESUMEN
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised questions regarding the durability of immune responses after homologous or heterologous boosters after Ad26.COV2.S-priming. We found that SARS-CoV-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T cells are detectable 5 months after boosting, although waning of antibodies and limited cross-reactivity with Omicron BA.1 was observed.
Asunto(s)
Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Personal de Salud , InmunidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Phase III cancer clinical trials are expensive and time-consuming phases in drug development. Effective patient enrolment can reduce delays and save costs, offering patients an opportunity to benefit from innovative treatments. However, the current evidence base does not fully explain the persistence of barriers to patient enrolment in phase III cancer clinical trials. The aim was to explore clinicians' and pharmaceutical representatives' views on these barriers. DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed. In-depth information was collected from 15 experts in the field of oncology clinical trials, in particular clinical oncologists acting as principal investigators (PIs) and clinical research associates. By means of semistructured interviews, based on a questionnaire derived from our newly developed conceptual framework, they were asked to identify barriers to patient enrolment they had experienced and comment on barriers identified in literature. FINDINGS: Existing knowledge on barriers to patient enrolment was confirmed by all interviewees. Two new key barriers to patient enrolment were identified, that is, insufficient attention to the importance of clinical trial-based research in medical training and a trust gap between PIs and pharmaceutical representatives. A third important barrier was increasingly narrow patient inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of patient enrolment in phase III cancer clinical trials highly depends on the clinicians' willingness to take part in clinical trials. Raising awareness of the importance of clinical trials in medical training and among practising oncologists is recommended. Furthermore, to reduce barriers to patient enrolment, it is essential that both clinicians and pharmaceutical representatives acknowledge each other's expertise, become acquainted with each other's procedures and regulations, and work on building trust relationships. Finally, in accordance with our key findings, we propose to add two new barriers to our newly developed conceptual framework; insufficient attention to clinical trial research in medical training and trust gap.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Neoplasias , Participación del Paciente , Industria Farmacéutica , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Médicos , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
The severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is spreading rapidly, even in vaccinated individuals, raising concerns about immune escape. Here, we studied neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses targeting SARS-CoV-2 D614G [wild type (WT)] and the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern in a cohort of 60 health care workers after immunization with ChAdOx-1 S, Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2. High binding antibody levels against WT SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) were detected 28 days after vaccination with both mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2), which substantially decreased after 6 months. In contrast, antibody levels were lower after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination but did not wane. Neutralization assays showed consistent cross-neutralization of the Beta and Delta variants, but neutralization of Omicron was significantly lower or absent. BNT162b2 booster vaccination after either two mRNA-1273 immunizations or Ad26.COV2 priming partially restored neutralization of the Omicron variant, but responses were still up to 17-fold decreased compared with WT. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected up to 6 months after all vaccination regimens, with more consistent detection of specific CD4+ than CD8+ T cells. No significant differences were detected between WT- and variant-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cell responses, including Omicron, indicating minimal escape at the T cell level. This study shows that vaccinated individuals retain T cell immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe COVID-19. Booster vaccinations are needed to further restore Omicron cross-neutralization by antibodies.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Ad26COVS1 , Vacuna BNT162 , Linfocitos T CD8-positivos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, which was approved as a single-shot immunization regimen, has been shown to be effective against severe coronavirus disease 2019. However, this vaccine induces lower severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S)-specific antibody levels than those induced by messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines. The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a homologous or heterologous booster in persons who have received an Ad26.COV2.S priming dose are unclear. METHODS: In this single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity 28 days after a homologous or heterologous booster vaccination. The participants were assigned to receive no booster, an Ad26.COV2.S booster, an mRNA-1273 booster, or a BNT162b2 booster. The primary end point was the level of S-specific binding antibodies, and the secondary end points were the levels of neutralizing antibodies, S-specific T-cell responses, and reactogenicity. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare mRNA-1273 boosting with BNT162b2 boosting. RESULTS: Homologous or heterologous booster vaccination resulted in higher levels of S-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses than a single Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. The increase in binding antibodies was significantly larger with heterologous regimens that included mRNA-based vaccines than with the homologous booster. The mRNA-1273 booster was most immunogenic and was associated with higher reactogenicity than the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S boosters. Local and systemic reactions were generally mild to moderate in the first 2 days after booster administration. CONCLUSIONS: The Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA boosters had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. The strongest responses occurred after boosting with mRNA-based vaccines. Boosting with any available vaccine was better than not boosting. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw; SWITCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927936.).
Asunto(s)
Ad26COVS1/inmunología , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Inmunización Secundaria , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Vacuna nCoV-2019 mRNA-1273/inmunología , Adulto , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/sangre , Vacuna BNT162/inmunología , Femenino , Humanos , Interferón gamma/sangre , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Método Simple Ciego , Linfocitos T/inmunologíaRESUMEN
Vitamin B12 deficiency is traditionally treated with intramuscular injections of cobalamin, which are stressful events for children. In adults, studies have shown adequate absorption of intranasally administered vitamin B12. To date, data concerning efficacy of intranasal administration of vitamin B12 in children are lacking. We report on ten cases of children with vitamin B12 deficiency who were successfully treated with intranasal administration of a spray containing hydroxocobalamin. The mean baseline vitamin B12 concentration increased from 126.3 pmol/l (SD 55.4) to 1914.7 pmol/l (SD 1509.7). No side effects were reported.Conclusion: In children, intranasal application of vitamin B12 seems a safe and effective alternative to intramuscular injections, leading to higher compliance and less burden to patients.What is Known:⢠Children with vitamin B12deficiency are traditionally treated with intramuscular cobalamin injections, which are costly and painful.⢠Studies in adults showed that intranasal application of hydroxocobalamin leads to normalisation of vitamin B12levels.What is New:⢠The intranasal application of vitamin B12resulted in a substantial increase of the mean baseline vitamin B12levels without any side effect.⢠These data encourage a systematic evaluation of intranasal treatment of vitamin B12deficiency in order to define safety, optimal dosage and administration frequency.
Asunto(s)
Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Deficiencia de Vitamina B 12/diagnóstico , Deficiencia de Vitamina B 12/tratamiento farmacológico , Vitamina B 12/administración & dosificación , Centros Médicos Académicos , Administración Intranasal , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios de Cohortes , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intramusculares , Masculino , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Países Bajos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is widely applied in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In daily practice, adrenaline is added to the LIA mixture to achieve vasoconstriction. However, adrenaline has some possible negative side effects (e.g. tissue necrosis). This trial investigated whether ropivacaine alone is at least as effective for postoperative pain relief after LIA. METHODS: Fifty patients scheduled for primary TKA were included in this prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study receiving high-volume (150 mL) single-shot intra-capsular LIA with ropivacaine (2 %) with (Ropi+) or without (Ropi-) adrenaline (0.01 %). All patients received the same pre-, peri- and postoperative care with multimodal oral pain protocol. Postoperative pain was assessed before and after the first mobilization and during the first 48 h postoperative using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were rescue medication use, early mobilization, length of hospital stay, adverse events (AE's) and readmission rates. Patient reported outcomes measures (PROMS); Oxford Knee Score and WOMAC, were obtained preoperative and 3 months postoperative. RESULTS: VAS scores were not significantly different before (n.s.) and after the first mobilization (n.s.), neither over the first 48 h postoperative (n.s.). Patients who needed rescue medication (n.s.), who mobilized <6 h postoperative (n.s.), who were discharged before postoperative day 3 (n.s.), AE's and readmission rate (n.s.) were comparable between both groups. At 3-month follow-up, PROMS significantly improved within both groups. CONCLUSION: To prevent possible negative side effects (e.g. tissue necrosis), adrenaline should be omitted from the LIA mixture. Single-shot LIA with ropivacaine alone results in clinical acceptable adequate pain control and can be used in daily TKA practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized, double-blind, prospective clinical trial, Level I.