Search

High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews.To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes.We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series.We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318). Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme. The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information.Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSI) are frequent hospital acquired complications. Ongoing surveillance pro-grams evaluate the incidence of SSI worldwide. However, incidence rates are only estimated by the analyses of indicator procedures to date. OBJECTIVE To further assess procedure specific SSI rates, the harmonization of international procedure codes is necessary. METHODS We compared existing surgical procedure coding systems of five European countries (France, Ger-many, Italy, Spain, and the UK) and distributed a simplified code to all existing country-specific codes. Based on mode and extent of the surgical procedure and the surgical site, 153 codes were defined, distributed, and characterized within the presented coding system. Additionally, minimally invasive, laparoscopic or open surgical approaches were considered, whereas eye surgery and di-agnostic procedures were excluded. RESULTS A total number of 15432 surgical procedures were assigned to 153 SALT codes from 10 specialties. Almost 4000 (26%) procedure codes from the SALT coding system were classified as orthopaedic and trauma surgeries, thus this medical field represents the most diverse group within the SALT coding system, followed by abdominal surgical procedures with 2390 (15%) procedure codes. CONCLUSIONS The Europe-wide SALT procedure code gives the opportunity to harmonize big data sets containing surgical procedures from international centres, and may simplify comparability of future interna-tional trial findings.

Summary Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most common hospital acquired infections. While the incidence of SSI in certain indicator procedures is the subject of ongoing surveillance efforts in hospitals and health care systems around the world, SSI rates vary markedly within surgical categories and are poorly represented by routinely monitored indicator procedures (eg, mastectomy or hernia surgery). Therefore, relying on indicator procedures to estimate the burden of SSI is imprecise and introduces bias as hospitals may take special precautions to achieve lower SSI rates. The most common cause of SSI is Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), as recently confirmed by a Europe-wide point-prevalence study conducted by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study is to determine the overall and procedure-specific incidence of S. aureus SSI in Europe. Secondary objectives are the overall and procedure-specific outcomes as well as the economic burden of S. aureus SSI in Europe. Explorative objectives are to characterize the composition of the surgical patient population and to estimate the number of patients at risk for S. aureus SSI. METHODS A retrospective, multinational, multicenter cohort study (Staphylococcus aureus Surgical Site Infection Multinational Epidemiology in Europe [SALT] study) with a nested case-control part will be conducted. The study will include all surgical procedures at a participating center in order to prevent selection bias and strengthen the understanding of SSI risk by determining the incidence for all common surgical procedures. Data will be assessed in the cohort population, including 150,000 adult patients who underwent any surgical procedure in 2016, and the case-control population. We will match patients establishing S. aureus SSI 1:1 with controls from the same center. Data on demographics, surgery, and microbiology will be exported from electronic files. More detailed data will be captured from the case-control population. The SALT study will include 13 major or academic surgical centers in Europe, comprising 3 in France, 4 in Germany, 2 in Italy, 3 in Spain, and 1 in the United Kingdom. Sites were selected using a feasibility questionnaire. RESULTS The SALT study is currently recruiting patients. The aim is to complete recruitment in February 2018 and to close the database in September 2018. The final results are expected by the end of 2018. CONCLUSIONS Results of the SALT study will help to better understand the precise risk of certain procedures. They will also provide insight into the overall and procedure-specific incidence and outcome as well as the economic burden of S. aureus SSI in Europe. Findings of the study may help guide the design of clinical trials for S. aureus vaccines. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03353532; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03353532 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xAK3gVmO)

The outcome of patients with metastatic osteosarcoma remains poor despite aggressive multimodality therapy. Liposomal Muramyl Tripeptide Phosphatidyl Ethanolamine (L-MTP-PE) is a non-specific immune modulator that activates monocytes and macrophages and has shown antitumor activity in osteosarcoma. The mechanism of action of L-MTP-PE remains unresolved. Here we investigated the effects of the agent on lymphocyte subpopulations. Whole peripheral blood from 9 healthy donors were stimulated with L-MTP-PE for 24 hours. Compared to non-stimulated controls, a proliferative response of CD3+ lymphocytes was found (1.77±0.06 fold expansion, p= We conclude that L-MTP-PE induces effective in vitro expansion of γδ T cells via a mechanisms involving the mevalonate pathway, in a manner similar to aminobisphosphonate agents. L-MTP-PE-activated γδ T cells have the potential to lyse osteosarcoma cells and may thus be involved in the antitumor effects of this agents. Citation Format: Sibylle Mellinghoff, Bianca Altvater, Uta Dirksen, Heribert Juergens, Claudia Rossig, Martina Ahlmann. The immunomodulatory agent L-MTP-PE induces activation and expansion of human γδ T cells capable of lysing osteosarcoma cells. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3980. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-3980