Impact of Bariatric Surgery on ABC Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) Gene Expression and Inflammation in the Adipose Tissue of Obese Diabetic Rats

Bariatric surgery improves dyslipidaemia and reduces body weight, but it remains unclear how bariatric surgery modulates gene expression in fat cells to influence the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK-9) and low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) gene expression. The expression of the PCSK9/LDLR/tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) gene in adipose tissue was measured in two groups of Zucker Diabetic Sprague Dawley (ZDSD) rats after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery or 'SHAM' operation. There was lower PCSK9 ( p = 0.02) and higher LDLR gene expression ( p = 0.02) in adipose tissue in rats after RYGB. Weight change did not correlate with PCSK9 gene expression (r = -0.5, p = 0.08) or TNFα gene expression (r = -0.4, p = 0.1). TNFα gene expression was positively correlated with PCSK9 gene expression (r = 0.7, p = 0.001) but not correlated with LDLR expression (r = -0.3, p = 0.3). Circulating triglyceride levels were lower in RYGB compared to the SHAM group (1.1 (0.8-1.4) vs. 1.5 (1.0-4.2), p = 0.038) mmol/L with no difference in cholesterol levels. LDLR gene expression was increased post-bariatric surgery with the potential to reduce the number of circulating LDL particles. PCSK9 gene expression and TNFα gene expression were positively correlated after RYGB in ZDSD rats, suggesting that the modulation of pro-inflammatory pathways in adipose tissue after RYGB may partly relate to PCSK9 and LDLR gene expression. </p

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