Search

Simple Summary: Measurable residual disease monitoring is an important prognostic tool in haematological malignancies commonly performed by two modalities: flow cytometry and molecular methods. In this paper, we studied consecutive adult participants requiring flow cytometric measurable residual disease monitoring. This is one of the largest prospective Australian studies to date, providing a unique insight into the Australian context. We described five distinctive patterns associated with disease relapse and survival and also investigated correlation with molecular methods. Our results provide additional evidence that the correlation between molecular and flow cytometric methods is moderate in B-lymphoblastic leukaemia and poor in acute myeloid leukaemia. There was a strong association between flow cytometry results and relapse in acute myeloid leukaemia but less so for B-lymphoblastic leukaemia. Our novel data indicate that the pattern of change in measurable residual disease over time was associated with the risk of relapse, particularly in acute myeloid leukaemia and highlight the divergent ways measurable residual disease testing can be employed across different leukaemias. Measurable residual disease (MRD) detected by flow cytometry (FC) is well established in paediatric B- lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) and adult chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), but its utility in adult B-ALL and adult acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is less clear. In this prospective MRD study, one of the largest in Australia to date, we examined consecutive bone marrow aspirates from adult participants with B-ALL (n = 47) and AML (n = 87) sent for FC-MRD testing at a quaternary referral hospital in Sydney. FC-MRD results were correlated to corresponding Mol-MRD testing where available and clinical outcomes at three-month intervals over 1 year. B-ALL showed a moderate positive correlation (rs = 0.401, p < 0.001), while there was no correlation between FC-MRD and Mol-MRD for AML (rs = 0.13, p = 0.237). Five FC-MRD patterns were identified which had significant associations with relapse (X2(4) = 31.17(4), p > 0.001) and survival (X2(4) = 13.67, p = 0.008) in AML, but not in B-ALL. The three-month MRD results were also strongly associated with survival in AML, while the association in B-ALL was less evident. There was a moderate correlation between FC-MRD and Mol-MRD in B-ALL but not AML. The association of FC-MRD with relapse and survival was stronger in AML than in B-ALL. Overall, these findings suggest divergent utilities of FC-MRD in AML and B-ALL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Annual vaccination against influenza is the best tool to prevent deaths and hospitalizations. Regular updates of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (TIV) are necessary due to high mutation rates in influenza viruses. TIV effectiveness is affected by antigenic mismatches, age, previous immunity, and other host factors. Studying TIV effectiveness annually in different populations is critical. The serological responses to Southern-Hemisphere TIV and circulating influenza strains were evaluated in 2018–2020 among Brazilian volunteers, using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays. Post-vaccination titers were corrected to account for pre-vaccination titers. Our population achieved >83% post-vaccination seroprotection levels, whereas seroconversion rates ranged from 10% to 46%. TIV significantly enhanced antibody titers and seroprotection against all prior and contemporary vaccine and circulating strains tested. Strong cross-reactive responses were detected, especially between H1N1 subtypes. A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016, included in the 2018 TIV, induced the poorest response. Significant titer and seroprotection reductions were observed 6 and 12 months after vaccination. Age had a slight effect on TIV response, whereas previous vaccination was associated with lower seroconversion rates and titers. Despite this, TIV induced high seroprotection for all strains, in all groups. Regular TIV evaluations, based on regional influenza strain circulation, should be conducted and the factors affecting response studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators.Design: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process.Participants: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process.Measurements and Main Results: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization.Conclusions: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]