Pregnancy during COVID-19: social contact patterns and vaccine coverage of pregnant women from CoMix in 19 European countries.

BACKGROUND Evidence and advice for pregnant women evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied social contact behaviour and vaccine uptake in pregnant women between March 2020 and September 2021 in 19 European countries. METHODS In each country, repeated online survey data were collected from a panel of nationally-representative participants. We calculated the adjusted mean number of contacts reported with an individual-level generalized additive mixed model, modelled using the negative binomial distribution and a log link function. Mean proportion of people in isolation or quarantine, and vaccination coverage by pregnancy status and gender were calculated using a clustered bootstrap. FINDINGS We recorded 4,129 observations from 1,041 pregnant women, and 115,359 observations from 29,860 non-pregnant individuals aged 18-49. Pregnant women made slightly fewer contacts (3.6, 95%CI = 3.5-3.7) than non-pregnant women (4.0, 95%CI = 3.9-4.0), driven by fewer work contacts but marginally more contacts in non-essential social settings. Approximately 15-20% pregnant and 5% of non-pregnant individuals reported to be in isolation and quarantine for large parts of the study period. COVID-19 vaccine coverage was higher in pregnant women than in non-pregnant women between January and April 2021. Since May 2021, vaccination in non-pregnant women began to increase and surpassed that in pregnant women. INTERPRETATION Limited social contact to avoid pathogen exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to many, especially women going through pregnancy. More recognition of maternal social support desire is needed in the ongoing pandemic. As COVID-19 vaccination continues to remain an important pillar of outbreak response, strategies to promote correct information can provide reassurance and facilitate informed pregnancy vaccine decisions in this vulnerable group

Ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma: an international, randomised, open-label, phase study

Background: Mantle-cell lymphoma is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Both ibrutinib and temsirolimus have shown single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. We undertook a phase 3 study to assess the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. Methods: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma confirmed by central pathology in 21 countries who had received one or more rituximab-containing treatments. Patients were stratified by previous therapy and simplified mantle-cell lymphoma international prognostic index score, and were randomly assigned with a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive daily oral ibrutinib 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1; 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of subsequent 21-day cycles). Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by a masked independent review committee with the primary hypothesis that ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus significantly improves progression-free survival. The analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01646021) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT (number 2012-000601-74). Findings: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Nov 26, 2013, 280 patients were randomised to ibrutinib (n=139) or temsirolimus (n=141). Primary efficacy analysis showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (p<0.0001) for patients treated with ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (hazard ratio 0.43 [95% CI 0.32-0.58]; median progression-free survival 14.6 months [95% CI 10.4-not estimable] vs 6.2 months [4.2-7.9], respectively). Ibrutinib was better tolerated than temsirolimus, with grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events reported for 94 (68%) versus 121 (87%) patients, and fewer discontinuations of study medication due to adverse events for ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (9 [6%] vs 36 [26%]). Interpretation: Ibrutinib treatment resulted in significant improvement in progression-free survival and better tolerability versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. These data lend further support to the positive benefit-risk ratio for ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with relapsed systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1/2 study

AbstractThis first prospective phase 2 study of single-agent bortezomib in relapsed primary systemic AL amyloidosis evaluated the recommended (maximum planned) doses identified in phase 1 testing (1.6 mg/m2 once weekly [days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 35-day cycles]; 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly [days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 21-day cycles]). Among all 70 patients enrolled in the study, 44% had ≥ 3 organs involved, including 73% and 56% with renal and cardiac involvement. In the 1.6 mg/m2 once-weekly and 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly groups, the hematologic response rate was 68.8% and 66.7% (37.5% and 24.2% complete responses, respectively); median time to first/best response was 2.1/3.2 and 0.7/1.2 months, and 78.8% and 75.5% had response durations of ≥ 1 year, respectively. One-year hematologic progression-free rates were 72.2% and 74.6%, and 1-year survival rates were 93.8% and 84.0%, respectively. Outcomes appeared similar in patients with cardiac involvement. Among all 70 patients, organ responses included 29% renal and 13% cardiac responses. Rates of grade ≥ 3 toxicities (79% vs 50%) and discontinuations/dose reductions (38%/53% vs 28%/22%) resulting from toxicities appeared higher with 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly versus 1.6 mg/m2 once-weekly dosing. Both bortezomib dose schedules represent active, well-tolerated regimens in relapsed AL amyloidosis. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00298766

Pregnancy during COVID-19: social contact patterns and vaccine coverage of pregnant women from CoMix in 19 European countries

BACKGROUND: Evidence and advice for pregnant women evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied social contact behaviour and vaccine uptake in pregnant women between March 2020 and September 2021 in 19 European countries. METHODS: In each country, repeated online survey data were collected from a panel of nationally-representative participants. We calculated the adjusted mean number of contacts reported with an individual-level generalized additive mixed model, modelled using the negative binomial distribution and a log link function. Mean proportion of people in isolation or quarantine, and vaccination coverage by pregnancy status and gender were calculated using a clustered bootstrap. FINDINGS: We recorded 4,129 observations from 1,041 pregnant women, and 115,359 observations from 29,860 non-pregnant individuals aged 18-49. Pregnant women made slightly fewer contacts (3.6, 95%CI = 3.5-3.7) than non-pregnant women (4.0, 95%CI = 3.9-4.0), driven by fewer work contacts but marginally more contacts in non-essential social settings. Approximately 15-20% pregnant and 5% of non-pregnant individuals reported to be in isolation and quarantine for large parts of the study period. COVID-19 vaccine coverage was higher in pregnant women than in non-pregnant women between January and April 2021. Since May 2021, vaccination in non-pregnant women began to increase and surpassed that in pregnant women. INTERPRETATION: Limited social contact to avoid pathogen exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to many, especially women going through pregnancy. More recognition of maternal social support desire is needed in the ongoing pandemic. As COVID-19 vaccination continues to remain an important pillar of outbreak response, strategies to promote correct information can provide reassurance and facilitate informed pregnancy vaccine decisions in this vulnerable group

Pregnancy during COVID-19: social contact patterns and vaccine coverage of pregnant women from CoMix in 19 European countries

CoMix Europe Working Group: Daniela Paolotti, André Karch, Veronika Jäger, Joaquin Baruch, Tanya Melillo, Henrieta Hudeckova, Magdalena Rosinska, Marta Niedzwiedzka-Stadnik, Krista Fischer, Sigrid Vorobjov, Hanna Sõnajalg, Christian Althaus, Nicola Low, Martina Reichmuth, Kari Auranen, Markku Nurhonen, Goranka Petrović, Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric, Sónia Namorado, Constantino Caetano, Ana João Santos, Gergely Röst, Beatrix Oroszi, Márton Karsai, Mario Fafangel, Petra Klepac, Natalija Kranjec, Cristina Vilaplana, Jordi Casabona.CoMix Europe Working Group: Sónia Namorado, Constantino Caetano, and Ana João Santos (Department of Epidemiology, National Institute of Health Dr Ricardo Jorge, Portugal)Background: Evidence and advice for pregnant women evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied social contact behaviour and vaccine uptake in pregnant women between March 2020 and September 2021 in 19 European countries. Methods: In each country, repeated online survey data were collected from a panel of nationally-representative participants. We calculated the adjusted mean number of contacts reported with an individual-level generalized additive mixed model, modelled using the negative binomial distribution and a log link function. Mean proportion of people in isolation or quarantine, and vaccination coverage by pregnancy status and gender were calculated using a clustered bootstrap. Findings: We recorded 4,129 observations from 1,041 pregnant women, and 115,359 observations from 29,860 non-pregnant individuals aged 18-49. Pregnant women made slightly fewer contacts (3.6, 95%CI = 3.5-3.7) than non-pregnant women (4.0, 95%CI = 3.9-4.0), driven by fewer work contacts but marginally more contacts in non-essential social settings. Approximately 15-20% pregnant and 5% of non-pregnant individuals reported to be in isolation and quarantine for large parts of the study period. COVID-19 vaccine coverage was higher in pregnant women than in non-pregnant women between January and April 2021. Since May 2021, vaccination in non-pregnant women began to increase and surpassed that in pregnant women. Interpretation: Limited social contact to avoid pathogen exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to many, especially women going through pregnancy. More recognition of maternal social support desire is needed in the ongoing pandemic. As COVID-19 vaccination continues to remain an important pillar of outbreak response, strategies to promote correct information can provide reassurance and facilitate informed pregnancy vaccine decisions in this vulnerable group.HPRU in Modelling & Health Economics,NIHR200908,European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme,EpiPose 101003688,TransMID 682540,TransMID 682540,TransMID 682540,EpiPose 101003688,Wellcome Trust,213589/Z/18/Z,National Institute for Health Research,CV220-088—COMIX,CV220-088—COMIX,CV220-088— COMIX,Global Challenges Research Fund,ES/P010873/1,Medical Research Council,MC_PC_19065,NIHR,PR-OD-1017-20002 HPRU in Modelling & Health Economics (NIHR200908: KLMW); European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme – (EpiPose 101,003,688: AG, WJE). Wellcome Trust (213,589/Z/18/Z: ESP). European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (TransMID 682,540: CF, PN, NH). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project RECAP managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: CIJ). NIHR (PR-OD-1017–20,002: WJE) UK MRC (MC_PC_19065—Covid 19: Understanding the dynamics and drivers of the COVID-19 epidemic using real-time outbreak analytics: WJE).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Vaccine effectiveness of two-dose BNT162b2 against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland over time: a test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about vaccine effectiveness over time among adolescents, especially against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. This study assessed the associations between time since two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and the occurrence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland. METHODS: We did test-negative, case-control studies in adolescents aged 12-17 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil and Scotland. We linked records of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen tests to national vaccination and clinical records. We excluded tests from individuals who did not have symptoms, were vaccinated before the start of the national vaccination programme, received vaccines other than BNT162b2 or a SARS-CoV-2 booster dose of any kind, or had an interval between their first and second dose of fewer than 21 days. Additionally, we excluded negative SARS-CoV-2 tests recorded within 14 days of a previous negative test, negative tests recorded within 7 days after a positive test, any test done within 90 days after a positive test, and tests with missing sex and location information. Cases (SARS-CoV-2 test-positive adolescents) and controls (test-negative adolescents) were drawn from a sample of individuals in whom tests were collected within 10 days of symptom onset. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 for both countries and against severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death) for Brazil across fortnightly periods. FINDINGS: We analysed 503 776 tests from 2 948 538 adolescents in Brazil between Sept 2, 2021, and April 19, 2022, and 127 168 tests from 404 673 adolescents in Scotland between Aug 6, 2021, and April 19, 2022. Vaccine effectiveness peaked at 14-27 days after the second dose in both countries during both waves, and was significantly lower against symptomatic infection during the omicron-dominant period in Brazil (64·7% [95% CI 63·0-66·3]) and in Scotland (82·6% [80·6-84·5]), than it was in the delta-dominant period (80·7% [95% CI 77·8-83·3] in Brazil and 92·8% [85·7-96·4] in Scotland). Vaccine efficacy started to decline from 27 days after the second dose for both countries, reducing to 5·9% (95% CI 2·2-9·4) in Brazil and 50·6% (42·7-57·4) in Scotland at 98 days or more during the omicron-dominant period. In Brazil, protection against severe disease remained above 80% from 28 days after the second dose and was 82·7% (95% CI 68·8-90·4) at 98 days or more after receiving the second dose. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland from 27 days after the second dose. However, protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes remained high at 98 days or more after the second dose in the omicron-dominant period. Booster doses for adolescents need to be considered. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme, Brazilian National Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Treatment of Dyspareunia by Creation of a Pseudojoint in Rigid Bone Following Total Penile Reconstruction with Fibular Osteocutaneous Flap

Gender reassignment requires total penile reconstruction, which is commonly performed with autologous tissue. One option for reconstruction is the free fibula osteocutaneous flap, which provides a long segment of vascularized bone that is less susceptible to infection and allows for deep penetration into the vagina during sexual intercourse. One problem, however, is that their sexual partner may suffer from pain (dyspareunia) because of the long and rigid bone. Our intent is to elucidate the treatment of female dyspareunia by surgically modifying the reconstructed penis with segmental osteotomies and fascia interposition within the rigid bone stock resulting from gender reassignment with a free fibula osteocutaneous flap. In order to improve their sexual relations and alleviate dyspareunia, a semirigid penis was created by forming a pseudojoint at the junction of the proximal and distal third of the fibula bone stock with osteotomies and fascia interposition. Alleviation of dyspareunia by surgical modification of a previously reconstructed penis for the couple to continue to have sexual relations. The created pseudojoints in the reconstructed penis allowed for pain‐free vaginal intercourse between the patient and his wife because of its now semirigid structure. The surgical modification presented in this case report addresses the treatment of dyspareunia by creating a more malleable penile reconstruction, which will now allow for a pain‐free vaginal intercourse. Salgado C, Rampazzo A, Xu E, and Chen H‐C. Treatment of dyspareunia by creation of a pseudojoint in rigid bone following total penile reconstruction with fibular osteocutaneous flap. J Sex Med **; **:**–**