Absence of Susceptibility Vessel Sign in Patients With Malignancy-Related Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated With Mechanical Thrombectomy.

Background and Purpose Clots rich in platelets and fibrin retrieved from patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) have been shown to be independently associated with the absence of the susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) on MRI and active malignancy. This study analyzed the association of SVS and the presence of active malignancy in patients with AIS who underwent mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods This single-center, retrospective, and cross-sectional study included consecutive patients with AIS with admission MRI treated with MT between January 2010 and December 2018. SVS status was evaluated on susceptibility-weighted imaging. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated to determine the association between absent SVS and the presence of active or occult malignancy. The performance of predictive models incorporating and excluding SVS status was compared using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (auROC). Results Of 577 patients with AIS with assessable SVS status, 40 (6.9%) had a documented active malignancy and 72 (12.5%) showed no SVS. The absence of SVS was associated with active malignancy (aOR 4.85, 95% CI 1.94-12.11) or occult malignancy (aOR 11.42, 95% CI 2.36-55.20). The auROC of predictive models, including demographics and common malignancy biomarkers, was higher but not significant (0.85 vs. 0.81, p = 0.07) when SVS status was included. Conclusion Absence of SVS on admission MRI of patients with AIS undergoing MT is associated with malignancy, regardless of whether known or occult. Therefore, the SVS might be helpful in detecting paraneoplastic coagulation disorders and occult malignancy in patients with AIS

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

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