Search

Objective: We analyzed the incidence and demographic features of pediatric intracranial hypertension.Methods: Inpatient and outpatient encounters of children aged 18 years or younger who were diagnosed with primary (idiopathic) or secondary intracranial hypertension between January 2010 and December 2013 were identified. Data were collected from a subspecialty clinic devoted to intracranial hypertension and the sole children's hospital in a large Midwestern city of the United States. Estimated incidence rates were calculated based on the number of newly diagnosed patients in our hospital's primary service area, which includes seven central Ohio counties. Sex, race, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and geographic distribution were also noted.Results: A total of 74 pediatric patients were diagnosed with intracranial hypertension (49 primary/idiopathic and 25 secondary) between January 2010 and December 2013. Using census data, we determined the pediatric population in our service area during the four-year period. The Ohio Hospital Association's database indicated that 92.3% of patients aged 0 to 17 years residing in the region sought care at our institution. By combining these data, we calculated an annual incidence of primary and secondary intracranial hypertension of 0.63 and 0.32 per 100,000 children, respectively.Conclusions: The estimated annual incidence of pediatric primary intracranial hypertension in our seven county service area in central Ohio is similar to previous pediatric reports from other countries and is 67% of that reported in the US adult population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Nerve cross-sectional area reference values have been reported for many nerves, but there have been few studies in pediatric and geriatric populations. This study was conducted to determine the influence of age on nerve cross-sectional area. Methods: Thirty-two children (3 months to 16 years) and 20 geriatric adults (67-92 years) without known neurologic conditions underwent bilateral ultrasound to measure the area of the following nerves: median at the wrist and forearm; ulnar at the wrist and elbow; radial in the spiral groove; sciatic in the distal thigh; fibular at the knee; tibial at the knee and ankle; and sural at the ankle. Results: In general, nerve cross-sectional area increased with age. Nerve size correlated most closely with age, but a correlation was also seen with body mass index. Conclusions: Nerve cross-sectional area increases with age, which is important to note when using ultrasound to evaluate children and geriatric patients. Muscle Nerve 47: 890-893, 2013 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing.Methods: The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings: 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46·1 years (IQR 36·0-54·1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infections 7 days after the second dose (incidence density four infections per 10 000 person-days). In the unvaccinated cohort, 543 (56%) participants had typical COVID-19 symptoms and 140 (14%) were asymptomatic on or 14 days before their PCR positive test date, compared with 29 (36%) with typical COVID-19 symptoms and 15 (19%) asymptomatic in the vaccinated cohort. A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 55-85) 21 days after first dose and 85% (74-96) 7 days after two doses in the study population.Interpretation: Our findings show that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults. This cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and shows effectiveness against this variant.Funding: Public Health England, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and the National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6–14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol. [Display omitted] • BNT162b2 vaccine with an extended interval between doses is highly protective • Antibody levels were higher after the extended regimen compared with the short regimen • The extended regimen enriches for virus-specific CD4+ T cells expressing IL-2 • Antibody levels wane after each dose, but B and T cell pools are maintained After giving a primary dose, delaying administration of a second dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6–14 weeks continues to provide strong protection and contributes to favorable antibody, B cell, and T cell responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]