Non-invasive management of peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is common and symptoms can be debilitating and lethal. Risk management, exercise, radiological and surgical intervention are all valuable therapies, but morbidity and mortality rates from this disease are increasing. Circulatory enhancement can be achieved using simple medical electronic devices, with claims of minimal adverse side effects. The evidence for these is variable, prompting a review of the available literature. METHODS: Embase and Medline were interrogated for full text articles in humans and written in English. Any external medical devices used in the management of peripheral arterial disease were included if they had objective outcome data. RESULTS: Thirty-one papers met inclusion criteria, but protocols were heterogenous. The medical devices reported were intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), electronic nerve (NMES) or muscle stimulators (EMS), and galvanic electrical dressings. In patients with intermittent claudication, IPC devices increase popliteal artery velocity (49-70 %) and flow (49-84 %). Gastrocnemius EMS increased superficial femoral artery flow by 140 %. Over 4.5-6 months IPC increased intermittent claudication distance (ICD) (97-150 %) and absolute walking distance (AWD) (84-112 %), with an associated increase in quality of life. NMES of the calf increased ICD and AWD by 82 % and 61-150 % at 4 weeks, and 26 % and 34 % at 8 weeks. In patients with critical limb ischaemia IPC reduced rest pain in 40-100 % and was associated with ulcer healing rates of 26 %. IPC had an early limb salvage rate of 58-83 % at 1-3 months, and 58-94 % at 1.5-3.5 years. No studies have reported the use of EMS or NMES in the management of CLI. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to support the use of IPC in the management of claudication and CLI. There is a building body of literature to support the use of electrical stimulators in PAD, but this is low level to date. Devices may be of special benefit to those with limited exercise capacity, and in non-reconstructable critical limb ischaemia. Galvanic stimulation is not recommended

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF Therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose