Search

Introduction Adolescence is a pivotal time for individuals with celiac disease (CD), presenting a host of psychosocial challenges. Managing a strict gluten-free diet (GFD) while forming self-identity, striving for autonomy, and navigating social relationships significantly impacts adolescents with CD. The present pilot study investigates the impact of psychological factors on behavioral and dietary responses in adolescents with CD, utilizing repeated measures over time. Methods Thirty-one adolescents aged 11-18 from a pediatric outpatient CD department were recruited. Participants completed the Resilience Youth Development Module (RYDM), the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and Celiac Dietary Adherence Test (CDAT) over four phases spanning four months. Twenty-seven parents also agreed to participate in completing the SDQ parents' version. Results The results revealed moderate levels of mindfulness and resilience, accompanied by inadequate adherence to a GFD. Baseline assessments revealed difficulties in peer relationships and psychosocial functioning, which parents corroborated. Over time, reductions in mindfulness and resilience were observed, along with modest improvements in dietary adherence and decreases in psychosocial difficulties.  Discussion This study underscores the importance of psychological traits, suggesting that enhancing mindfulness and resilience may improve both dietary adherence and overall well-being. However, given the dynamic nature of adolescents' coping strategies through developmental changes and social environments, tailored interventions are essential for effective disease management and social integration., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Medical Research Ethics Committee of Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki issued approval 42/ 28/05/2019. The study will follow the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Department of Medicine of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (general department assembly 42/ 28/05/2019, approval date). Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Bozas et al.)

Competing Interests: Thomas Chatzikonstantinou received honoraria from AbbVie. Lydia Scarfò received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Lilly, Janssen, Octapharma. Gloria Iacoboni received honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Autolus, Miltenyi, and AstraZeneca. Rosa Collado received support for attending meetings from Janssen‐Cilag and S.A. Sara Galimberti received honoraria support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Novartis, and Incyte, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Jazz, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Romain Guieze received honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Beigene, Roche, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. Eleftheria Hatzimichael received honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen‐Cilag, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Yair Herishanu received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Medion, and Lilly. José‐Ángel Hernández‐Rivas received honoraria as a consultant from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and BeiGene and support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene. Ozren Jaksic received honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Johnson and Johnson, and AbbVie. Kamel Laribi received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, Takeda, and Novartis. Maya Koren‐Michowitz received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and Gad Medical LTD. and support for attending meetings from Novartis. Arnon P. Kater received advisory board fees and research money from Janssen, AbbVie, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. Ioannis Kotsianidis received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie and Janssen. Ivana Milosevic received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Roche, and Takeda. Almudena Navarro‐Bailón received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Janssen, and Beigene. Jacopo Olivieri received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Gianluigi Reda received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Beigene, and is currently employed by AstraZeneca. Gian M. Rigolin received honoraria for participation in speaker's bureau from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. Mattia Schipani received honoraria and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Janssen‐Cilag and owns shares of stock in AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK. Tereza Shokralla and Stephan Stilgenbauer reports research funding from, consultancy or advisory role for, honoraria from, speakers' bureau participation for, and travel support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann‐La Roche, Incyte, Infinity, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis. Eric Tse received support for attending meetings from Takeda. Theodoros Vassilakopoulos received honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Integris, and Servier, and support for attending meetings from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Winmedica. Candida Vitale received honoraria from AbbVie, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Janssen. Renata Walewska received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Beigene, support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, and SecuraBio. Lucrecia Yañez received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Jazz, MSD, and Pfizer, support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Pfizer, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Janssen, Beigene, and Celgene. Francesc Bosch received consulting fees, honoraria, and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma, Celgene/BMS, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Gilead and TG Therapeutics, Advantage Allogene, Lava Therapeutics, and Enterome. Stephen Mulligan received advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche, and BeiGene. Maria Angelopoulou received consulting fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Amgen and honoraria from AbbVie, Takeda, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Novartis. Fatih Demirkan received support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. Tomas Papajík received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, Janssen‐Cilag, and AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca. Marta Coscia received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Constantine Tam received honoraria from AbbVie, Beigene, Janssen, and LOXO. Antonio Cuneo received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, and Lilly. Gianluca Gaidano received honoraria from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Hikma, Incyte, Janssen, and Lilly. Niki Stavroyianni received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. Lukas Smolej received consulting fees, honoraria, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen and advisory board fees from AbbVie and AstraZeneca. Martin Spacek received honoraria and consulting and advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Michael Doubek received research support and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Eugene Nikitin received honoraria from AbbVie. Kostas Stamatopoulos received research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche; honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and Janssen. Paolo Ghia received research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Galapagos, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology @Lilly, MSD, Roche, and is an Editor of HemaSphere. Georgios Karakatsoulis, Eva Minga, Dimitra Chamou, Jana Kotaskova, Christos Demosthenous, Elisa Albi, Miguel Alcoceba, Salem Al‐Shemari, Thérèse Aurran‐Schleinitz, Francesca Bacchiarri, Sofia Chatzileontiadou, Zadie Davis, Marcos Daniel de Deus Santos, Maria Dimou, Elena Dmitrieva, David Donaldson, Gimena Dos Santos, Barbara Dreta, Maria Efstathopoulou, Shaimaa El‐Ashwah, Alicia Enrico, Andrzej Frygier, Andrea Galitzia, Eva Gimeno, Valerio Guarente, Sean Harrop, Elżbieta Kalicińska, Volkan Karakus, Bonnie Kho, Maria Kislova, Εliana Konstantinou, Zuzana Kubova, Jorge Labrador, Deepesh Lad, Luca Laurenti, Thomas Longval, Alberto Lopez‐Garcia, Juan Marquet, Stanislava Maslejova, Carlota Mayor‐Bastida, Biljana Mihaljevic, Fatima Miras, Riccardo Moia, Marta Morawska, Uttam K. Nath, Irina Panovska‐Stavridis, Maria Papaioannou, Cheyenne Pierie, Anna Puiggros, Rosa Ruchlemer, Annett Schiwitza, Yandong Shen, Tereza Shokralla, Martin Simkovic, Svetlana Smirnova, Dina S. A. Soliman, Tamar Tadmor, Kristina Tomic, Andrea Visentin, George Vrachiolias, Vojin Vukovic, Zhenshu Xu, Munci Yagci, Mohamed Yassin, Jana Zuchnicka, David Oscier, Alessandro Gozzetti, Panagiotis Panagiotidis, Blanca Espinet, Paolo Sportoletti, Gerassimos A. Pangalis, Viola M. Popov, Bella Biderman, Roberta Murru, Rainer Claus, Livio Trentin, Darko Antic, Olga B. Kalashnikova, Mark Catherwood, Sarka Pospisilova, and Anastasia Chatzidimitriou have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Despite recent research efforts to explore the co-occurrence patterns of diverse microbes within soil microbial communities, a substantial knowledge-gap persists regarding global climate influences on soil microbiota behaviour. Comprehending co-occurrence patterns within distinct geoclimatic groups is pivotal for unravelling the ecological structure of microbial communities, that are crucial for preserving ecosystem functions and services. Our study addresses this gap by examining global climatic patterns of microbial diversity. Using data from the Earth Microbiome Project, we analyse a meta-community co-occurrence network for bacterial communities. This method unveils substantial shifts in topological features, highlighting regional and climatic trends. Arid, Polar, and Tropical zones show lower diversity but maintain denser networks, whereas Temperate and Cold zones display higher diversity alongside more modular networks. Furthermore, it identifies significant co-occurrence patterns across diverse climatic regions. Central taxa associated with different climates are pinpointed, highlighting climate's pivotal role in community structure. In conclusion, our study identifies significant correlations between microbial interactions in diverse climatic regions, contributing valuable insights into the intricate dynamics of soil microbiota., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In this retrospective international multicenter study, we describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and related disorders (small lymphocytic lymphoma and high-count monoclonal B lymphocytosis) infected by SARS-CoV-2, including the development of post-COVID condition. Data from 1540 patients with CLL infected by SARS-CoV-2 from January 2020 to May 2022 were included in the analysis and assigned to four phases based on cases disposition and SARS-CoV-2 variants emergence. Post-COVID condition was defined according to the WHO criteria. Patients infected during the most recent phases of the pandemic, though carrying a higher comorbidity burden, were less often hospitalized, rarely needed intensive care unit admission, or died compared to patients infected during the initial phases. The 4-month overall survival (OS) improved through the phases, from 68% to 83%, p = .0015. Age, comorbidity, CLL-directed treatment, but not vaccination status, emerged as risk factors for mortality. Among survivors, 6.65% patients had a reinfection, usually milder than the initial one, and 16.5% developed post-COVID condition. The latter was characterized by fatigue, dyspnea, lasting cough, and impaired concentration. Infection severity was the only risk factor for developing post-COVID. The median time to resolution of the post-COVID condition was 4.7 months. OS in patients with CLL improved during the different phases of the pandemic, likely due to the improvement of prophylactic and therapeutic measures against SARS-CoV-2 as well as the emergence of milder variants. However, mortality remained relevant and a significant number of patients developed post-COVID conditions, warranting further investigations., (© 2023 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: It has been increasingly recognized that some people experience post-traumatic growth (PTG) as a result of struggling with cancer., Objective: This systematic review aims to identify psychosocial interventions that might facilitate PTG in adults with cancer., Methods: A search was conducted in PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ProQuest up to 16 September 2022. The PRISMA guidelines were followed; all included interventional studies had to comprise 30 or more adults with cancer, using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, from 1994 forward., Results: A total of 2731 articles were retrieved, 1028 of those were screened and 37 unique trials were included (46 articles). A large number of studies were published since 2018 (52.4%), were randomized controlled trials (43.2%), and had group interventions (34.8%), including mainly female participants (83.8%) with a single cancer type (54.1%). Most interventions (75.7%) were moderately to highly effective in increasing PTG (d = 0.65, 95% CI 0.39-0.91) with the most effective interventions using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (d = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.05-2.44), Mindfulness-based (d = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.14-0.94) and Education, Peer Support and Health Coaching interventions (d = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.1-0.46). Expression-based and Positive Psychology-based approaches also showed promising results. Notably, the majority of studies had a high risk of bias., Conclusions: PTG facilitation is a promising field that should be pursued as it not only allows people with cancer to overcome their trauma but also results in them going over and above their pre-cancer state, enhancing resilience, health, and well-being., (© 2023 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Our aim was to evaluate the concordance between the Myriad MyChoice and two alternative homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assays (AmoyDx HRD Focus NGS Panel and OncoScan™) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Tissue samples from 50 patients with newly diagnosed EOC and known Myriad MyChoice HRD status were included. DNA aliquots from tumor samples, previously evaluated with Myriad MyChoice and centrally reassessed, were distributed to laboratories to assess their HRD status using the two platforms, after being blinded for the Myriad MyChoice CDx HRD status. The primary endpoint was the concordance between Myriad MyChoice and each alternative assay. Tumor samples were evaluated with an AmoyDx ® HRD Focus Panel ( n = 50) and with OncoScan™ ( n = 43). Both platforms provided results for all tumors. Analysis showed that correlation was high for the Myriad MyChoice GI score and AmoyDx ® HRD Focus Panel (r = 0.79) or OncoScan™ (r = 0.87) (continuous variable). The overall percent agreement (OPA) between Myriad MyChoice GI status (categorical variable) and each alternative assay was 83.3% (68.6-93.3%) with AmoyDx and 77.5% (61.5-89.2%) with OncoScan™. The OPA in HRD status between Myriad MyChoice and AmoyDx was 88.6% (75.4-96.2). False-positive rates were 31.6% (6/19) for AmoyDx GI status and 31.9% (7/22) for OncoScan™, while false-negative rates were 0% (0/28, AmoyDx) and 11.1% (2/18, OncoScan™) compared with the Myriad MyChoice GI status. While substantial concordance between Myriad MyChoice and alternative assays was demonstrated, prospective validation of the analytical performance and clinical relevance of these assays is warranted.

Objective: Despite the significant advances in healthcare, people living with HIV still face challenges that affect their quality of life (QoL), both in terms of their physical state as represented by frailty and of their illness perceptions (IP). The aim of this study was to unravel the associations between these constructs (QoL, frailty, IP)., Methods: This multicenter, cross-sectional study included 477 people living with HIV (93% male; median age = 43 years, IQR = 51.7) from six HIV clinics in Greece. Frailty phenotype, QoL and IP were assessed using Fried's criteria, EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), respectively. Network analysis model was utilized., Results: Among frailty criteria, exhaustion had the highest expected influence, while the strongest correlation concerns exhaustion and weak grip strength (pr = 0.14). Regarding the QoL items, usual activities displayed the highest expected influence. The correlations of pain/discomfort with mobility (pr = 0.31), and usual activities with self-care (pr = 0.34) were the strongest. For the BIPQ items, the strongest correlation was found between illness concern and emotional response (pr = 0.45), whereas the latter item was the one that displayed the highest expected influence. Three communities were formed: 1) personal control, treatment control and coherence, 2) the frailty items with mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort, and 3) the rest BIPQ items with anxiety/depression. Identity displayed the highest bridge strength, followed by pain/discomfort, usual activities and consequences., Conclusions: The interplay between QoL, frailty, and IP in people living with HIV requires clinical attention. Self-reported exhaustion, slow walking speed, and low physical activity affect the physical QoL dimensions, while anxiety/depression is strongly associated with illness-related concern and perceived emotional effects, leading to psychological distress. Symptom management can improve QoL, and information on the disease and treatment can enhance control over the disease. Developing interventions to address QoL, frailty, and IP is crucial., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: IK is an employee of Gilead Sciences Hellas and Cyprus (Medical Affairs). CK has received a grant from Gilead Sciences Hellas, paid to her institution, to support this collaborative study. IK contributed to the study design, the draft and the review of the manuscript, while no contribution was provided regarding data collection, data entry, data analysis and interpretation of findings. Additionally, this commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section, (Copyright: © 2023 Kapetanakis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a higher risk of developing other malignancies (OMs) compared to the general population. However, the impact of CLL-related risk factors and CLL-directed treatment is still unclear and represents the focus of this work., Methods: We conducted a retrospective international multicenter study to assess the incidence of OMs and detect potential risk factors in 19,705 patients with CLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or high-count CLL-like monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, diagnosed between 2000 and 2016. Data collection took place between October 2020 and March 2022., Findings: In 129,254 years of follow-up after CLL diagnosis, 3513 OMs were diagnosed (27.2 OMs/1000 person-years). The most common hematological OMs were Richter transformation, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Non-melanoma skin (NMSC) and prostate cancers were the most common solid tumors (STs).The only predictor for MDS and AML development was treatment with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with/without rituximab (FC ± R) (OR = 3.7; 95% CI = 2.79-4.91; p < 0.001). STs were more frequent in males and patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy variable genes (OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.49-2.11; p < 0.001/OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.6-2.24; p < 0.001).CLL-directed treatment was associated with non-melanoma skin and prostate cancers (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.36-2.41; p < 0.001/OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.12-3.97; p = 0.021). In contrast, breast cancers were more frequent in untreated patients (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; p < 0.001).Patients with CLL and an OM had inferior overall survival (OS) than those without. AML and MDS conferred the worst OS (p < 0.001)., Interpretation: OMs in CLL impact on OS. Treatment for CLL increased the risk for AML/MDS, prostate cancer, and NMSC. FCR was associated with increased risk for AML/MDS., Funding: AbbVie, and EU/EFPIAInnovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking HARMONY grant n° 116026., Competing Interests: TC received honoraria from AbbVie. LS received consulting fees from AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Janssen, honoraria from Janssen and Octapharma, support for attending meetings from BeiGene and Janssen and advisory board fees from Merck. SMu received advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche and BeiGene. JAHR received honoraria as a consultant from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and BeiGene and support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene. LI received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, and Janssen-Cilag. APK received advisory board fees and research money from Janssen, AbbVie, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. M-DL received travel expenses from Janssen and AbbVie. GMR received honoraria for participation to speaker's bureau from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. JVT received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, and Janssen, honoraria for scientific talks from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche, travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Roche, and Lilly, and advisory boards fees for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene. GI received honoraria from Novartis, BMS, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, and Miltenyi, support for attending meetings from Kite/Gilead, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie and advisory board fees from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS, and Autolus. FBi received support for attending meetings from AbbVie. RCo received support for attending meetings from Janssen-Cilag and S.A. SG received honoraria support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Novartis, and Incyte, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Jazz, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RGS received support for attending meetings from AbbVie and S.L.U. RG received honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Beigene, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca. YH received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Medion, and Lilly. OJ received honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Johnson and Johnson, and AbbVie. LK received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, Takeda, and Novartis. MKM received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and Gad Medical LTD and support for attending meetings from Novartis. IKo received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie and Janssen. IM received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Roche, and Takeda. ANB received honoraria, advisory board fees and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Janssen, and Beigene. JO received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. GR received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Beigene, and is currently employed by AstraZeneca. TP received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, and AstraZeneca and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca. MS received honoraria and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Janssen-Cilag and owns shares of stock in AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK. MSp received honoraria and consulting and advisory board fees, and support for attending meeting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. ET received support for attending meetings from Takeda. TV received honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Integris, and Servier and support for attending meetings from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Winmedica. CV received honoraria from AbbVie, consulting fees from AstraZeneca and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Janssen. RW received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Beigene, support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, and SecuraBio. EWS received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, and Janssen-Cilag and support for attending meetings from AbbVie. LY received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Jazz, MSD, and Pfizer, support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Pfizer, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Janssen, Beigene, and Celgene. MAn received consulting fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Amgen and honoraria from AbbVie, Takeda, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Novartis. MC received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. ACu received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, and Lilly. FD support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. GG received honoraria, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen and advisory board fees from Lilly. EN received honoraria from AbbVie. LSm received consulting fees, honoraria and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen and advisory board fees from AbbVie and AstraZeneca. NS received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. CT received honoraria from AbbVie, Beigene, Janssen, and LOXO. FB received consulting fees, honoraria and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma, Celgene/BMS, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Gilead and TG Therapeutics, Advantage Allogene, Lava Therapeutics, and Enterome. MDo received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca and Janssen, advisory board fees from Swixx, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. PG received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, MSD, and Roche; grant support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen. KS received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly and AstraZeneca, consulting fees and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. GK, EM, DC, JK, CD, MA, SA, TAS, FBa, MB, ACa, AM, AKM, RC, SC, ACh, ZD, MDi, DD, GDS, BD, ME, SEA, AE, AF, AG, EG, IGGM, AGo, AjG, RGu, SH, EH, SJ, EKa, VK, BK, MK, EK, RJK, JL, DL, IL, TL, ALG, JM, LMR, MMa, SM, CMB, BM, FM, RM, MMo, RMu, UKN, ACO, DO, IPS, MP, ZK, PP, CP, AP, LR, RR, MDDS, AS, YS, MSi, SS, DSAS, TT, KT, AV, GV, VV, ZX, MYa, MY, JZ, DA, BB, MCa, RCl, BE, OBK, LL, GP, PPa, VMP, SP, PS, LT, AC, have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The current study aimed to investigate the rates of anxiety, clinical depression, and suicidality and their changes in health professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak., Materials and Methods: The data came from the larger COMET-G study. The study sample includes 12,792 health professionals from 40 countries (62.40% women aged 39.76 ± 11.70; 36.81% men aged 35.91 ± 11.00 and 0.78% non-binary gender aged 35.15 ± 13.03). Distress and clinical depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm, respectively., Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses, and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables., Results: Clinical depression was detected in 13.16% with male doctors and 'non-binary genders' having the lowest rates (7.89 and 5.88% respectively) and 'non-binary gender' nurses and administrative staff had the highest (37.50%); distress was present in 15.19%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics, and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (24.64% vs. 9.62%; p < 0.0001). Suicidal tendencies were at least doubled in terms of RASS scores. Approximately one-third of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop clinical depression was associated with a history of Bipolar disorder (RR = 4.23)., Conclusions: The current study reported findings in health care professionals similar in magnitude and quality to those reported earlier in the general population although rates of clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, and adherence to conspiracy theories were much lower. However, the general model of factors interplay seems to be the same and this could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

The analysis of the immunogenetic background of multiple myeloma (MM) has proven key to understanding disease ontogeny. However, limited information is available regarding the immunoglobulin (IG) gene repertoire in MM cases carrying different heavy chain isotypes. Here, we studied the IG gene repertoire in a series of 523 MM patients, of whom 165 and 358 belonged to the IgA and IgG MM groups, respectively. IGHV3 subgroup genes predominated in both groups. However, at the individual gene level, significant (p<0.05) differences were identified regarding IGHV3-21 (frequent in IgG MM) and IGHV5-51 (frequent in IgA MM). Moreover, biased pairings were identified between certain IGHV genes and IGHD genes in IgA versus IgG MM. Turning to the imprints of somatic hypermutation (SHM), the bulk of rearrangements (IgA: 90.9%, IgG: 87.4%) were heavily mutated [exhibiting an IGHV germline identity (GI) <95%]. SHM topology analysis disclosed distinct patterns in IgA MM versus IgG MM cases expressing B cell receptor IG encoded by the same IGHV gene: the most pronounced examples concerned the IGHV3-23, IGHV3-30 and IGHV3-9 genes. Furthermore, differential SHM targeting was also identified between IgA MM versus IgG MM, particularly in cases utilizing certain IGHV genes, alluding to functional selection. Altogether, our detailed immunogenetic evaluation in the largest to-date series of IgA and IgG MM patients reveals certain distinct features in the IGH gene repertoires and SHM. These findings suggest distinct immune trajectories for IgA versus IgG MM, further underlining the role of external drive in the natural history of MM., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. KS has received grant support from Abbvie: Honoraria, Travel expenses, Janssen: Honoraria, Travel expenses, Research funding. ET has received grant support from GSK: Honoraria, Research funding, Novartis: Honoraria, Genesis: Honoraria, Research funding, BMS: Honoraria, Amgen: Honoraria, Travel expenses, Research funding, EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Travel expenses, Takeda: Honoraria, Travel expenses, Research funding, Janssen: Honoraria, Research funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research funding. SF has received grant support from Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research funding, Advisory board, EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Advisory board, Abbvie: Consultancy, Sandoz: Consultancy, Incyte: Advisory board, Itfarmaco: Advisory board, Clinigen: Advisory board, Morphosys: Research funding, Gilead: Research funding, Beigene: Research funding; Gentili: Honoraria., (Copyright © 2023 Gkoliou, Agathangelidis, Karakatsoulis, Lalayanni, Papalexandri, Medina, Genuardi, Chlichlia, Hatjiharissi, Papaioannou, Terpos, Jimenez, Sakellari, Ferrero, Ladetto, Sanz, Belessi and Stamatopoulos.)

Background: Microenvironmental interactions of the malignant clone with T cells are critical throughout the natural history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Indeed, clonal expansions of T cells and shared clonotypes exist between different CLL patients, strongly implying clonal selection by antigens. Moreover, immunogenic neoepitopes have been isolated from the clonotypic B cell receptor immunoglobulin sequences, offering a rationale for immunotherapeutic approaches. Here, we interrogated the T cell receptor (TR) gene repertoire of CLL patients with different genomic aberration profiles aiming to identify unique signatures that would point towards an additional source of immunogenic neoepitopes for T cells., Experimental Design: TR gene repertoire profiling using next generation sequencing in groups of patients with CLL carrying one of the following copy-number aberrations (CNAs): del(11q), del(17p), del(13q), trisomy 12, or gene mutations in TP53 or NOTCH1 ., Results: Oligoclonal expansions were found in all patients with distinct recurrent genomic aberrations; these were more pronounced in cases bearing CNAs, particularly trisomy 12, rather than gene mutations. Shared clonotypes were found both within and across groups, which appeared to be CLL-biased based on extensive comparisons against TR databases from various entities. Moreover, in silico analysis identified TR clonotypes with high binding affinity to neoepitopes predicted to arise from TP53 and NOTCH1 mutations., Conclusions: Distinct TR repertoire profiles were identified in groups of patients with CLL bearing different genomic aberrations, alluding to distinct selection processes. Abnormal protein expression and gene dosage effects associated with recurrent genomic aberrations likely represent a relevant source of CLL-specific selecting antigens., Competing Interests: CH declares part ownership of Munich Leukemia Laboratory MLL. SJ is employed by the MLL. RR received honoraria and is a member on the advisory board of Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Illumina and Roche. PG received honoraria and is a member on the advisory board of AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Adaptive, ArQule/MSD, BeiGene, CelGene/Juno, Gilead, Janssen, Loxo/Lilly, Sunesis; and also receives research funding from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis. LS received honoraria and is a member on the advisory board of AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen; and also received travel grants from BeiGene, Janssen; Speaker bureau: Octapharma. KS received research funding from Abbvie, AstraZeneca and Abbvie and is a member on the advisory board of AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AC received research funding from Abbvie, Novartis and Janssen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Vlachonikola, Pechlivanis, Karakatsoulis, Sofou, Gkoliou, Jeromin, Stavroyianni, Ranghetti, Scarfo, Österholm, Mansouri, Notopoulou, Siorenta, Anagnostopoulos, Ghia, Haferlach, Rosenquist, Psomopoulos, Kouvatsi, Baliakas, Stamatopoulos and Chatzidimitriou.)

Classification of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) based on the somatic hypermutation (SHM) status of the clonotypic immunoglobulin heavy variable (IGHV) gene has established predictive and prognostic relevance. The SHM status is assessed based on the number of mutations within the IG heavy variable domain sequence, albeit only over the rearranged IGHV gene excluding the variable heavy complementarity determining region 3 (VH CDR3). This may lead to an underestimation of the actual impact of SHM, in fact overlooking the most critical region for antigen-antibody interactions, i.e. the VH CDR3. Here we investigated whether SHM may be present within the VH CDR3 of cases bearing 'truly unmutated' IGHV genes (i.e. 100% germline identity across VH FR1-VH FR3) employing Next Generation Sequencing. We studied 16 patients bearing a 'truly unmutated' CLL clone assigned to stereotyped subsets #1 (n=12) and #6 (n=4). We report the existence of SHM within the germline-encoded 3'IGHV, IGHD, 5'IGHJ regions of the VH CDR3 in both the main IGHV-IGHD-IGHJ gene clonotype and its variants. Recurrent somatic mutations were identified between different patients of the same subset, supporting the notion that they represent true mutational events rather than technical artefacts; moreover, they were located adjacent to/within AID hotspots, pointing to SHM as the underlying mechanism. In conclusion, we provide immunogenetic evidence for intra-VH CDR3 variations, attributed to SHM, in CLL patients carrying 'truly unmutated' IGHV genes. Although the clinical implications of this observation remain to be defined, our findings offer a new perspective into the immunobiology of CLL, alluding to the operation of VH CDR3-restricted SHM in U-CLL., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Sofou, Zaragoza-Infante, Pechlivanis, Karakatsoulis, Notopoulou, Stavroyianni, Psomopoulos, Georgiou, de Septenville, Davi, Agathangelidis, Chatzidimitriou and Stamatopoulos.)

Introduction: There are few published empirical data on the effects of COVID-19 on mental health, and until now, there is no large international study., Material and Methods: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively., Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables., Results: Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed., Conclusions: The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest None pertaining to the current paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)