Characterisation of an atherosclerotic micro-calcification model using ApoE-/- mice and PET/CT

Intraplaque calcification is a prominent feature of advanced atherosclerotic plaque development. Current clinical evidence suggests that the size of calcium deposit may confer different effects on plaque stability [1], [2], [3]. Macro-calcified deposits (CT detected) are thought to confer plaque stability whereas micro-calcification ([18F]NaF PET detected) are thought to be a feature of high-risk ‘vulnerable’ plaques which are prone to rupture. Following on from the emerging role of micro-calcification in high risk plaques within the clinic [4], there is now an urgent need for preclinical atherosclerotic models with this feature to gain mechanistic insights and assess the impact of calcification-targeted therapies. Using a combination of invasive and ex vivo methods, ApoE−/− mice placed on an atherogenic diet have been shown to develop intraplaque calcification [5]. Additionally, [18F]NaF PET/CT has been used to assess the impact of exercise on calcification in ApoE−/− mice on a western diet [6]. In this study, we set out to determine if [18F]NaF PET/CT could be used to non-invasively detect and quantify micro-calficiation in the ApoE−/− high cholesterol diet (HCD) mouse model, and examine the temporal nature of this process

Ex vivo 18F-fluoride uptake and hydroxyapatite deposition in human coronary atherosclerosis

Early microcalcification is a feature of coronary plaques with an increased propensity to rupture and to cause acute coronary syndromes. In this ex vivo imaging study of coronary artery specimens, the non-invasive imaging radiotracer, 18F-fluoride, was highly selective for hydroxyapatite deposition in atherosclerotic coronary plaque. Specifically, coronary 18F-fluoride uptake had a high signal to noise ratio compared with surrounding myocardium that makes it feasible to identify coronary mineralisation activity. Areas of 18F-fluoride uptake are associated with osteopontin, an inflammation-associated glycophosphoprotein that mediates tissue mineralisation, and Runt-related transcription factor 2, a nuclear protein involved in osteoblastic differentiation. These results suggest that 18F-fluoride is a non-invasive imaging biomarker of active coronary atherosclerotic mineralisation

Kinetic modelling and quantification bias in small animal PET studies with [18F]AB5186, a novel 18 kDa translocator protein radiotracer

Introduction: Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging with selective 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) radiotracers has contributed to our understanding on the role of inflammation in disease development and progression. With an increasing number of rodent models of human disease and expansion of the preclinical PET imaging base worldwide, accurate quantification of longitudinal rodent TSPO PET datasets is necessary. This is particularly relevant as TSPO PET quantification relies on invasive blood sampling due to lack of a suitable tissue reference region. Here we investigate the kinetics and quantification bias of a novel TSPO radiotracer [18F]AB5186 in rats using automatic, manual and image derived input functions. Methods: [18F]AB5186 was administered intravenously and dynamic PET imaging was acquired over 2 hours. Arterial blood was collected manually to derive a population based input function or using an automatic blood sampler to derive a plasma input function. Manually sampled blood was also used to analyze the [18F]AB5186 radiometabolite profile in plasma and applied to all groups as a population based dataset. Kinetic models were used to estimate distribution volumes (VT) and [18F]AB5186 outcome measure bias was determined. Results: [18F]AB5186 distribution in rats was consistent with TSPO expression and at 2 h post-injection 50% of parent compound was still present in plasma. Population based manual sampling methods and image derived input function (IDIF) underestimated VT by ~50% and 88% compared with automatic blood sampling, respectively. The VT variability was lower when using IDIF versus arterial blood sampling methods and analysis of the Bland-Altman plots showed a good agreement between methods of analysis. Conclusion: Quantification of TSPO PET rodent data using image-derived methods, which are more amenable for longitudinal scanning of small animals, yields outcome measures with reduced variability and good agreement, albeit biased, compared with invasive blood sampling methods

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health