Changes in humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver transplant recipients compared to immunocompetent patients

The protective capacity and duration of humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection are not yet understood in solid organ transplant recipients. A prospective multicenter study was performed to evaluate the persistence of anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibodies in liver transplant recipients 6 months after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resolution. A total of 71 liver transplant recipients were matched with 71 immunocompetent controls by a propensity score including variables with a well-known prognostic impact in COVID-19. Paired case-control serological data were also available in 62 liver transplant patients and 62 controls at month 3 after COVID-19. Liver transplant recipients showed a lower incidence of anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibodies at 3 months (77.4% vs. 100%, p <.001) and at 6 months (63.4% vs. 90.1%, p <.001). Lower levels of antibodies were also observed in liver transplant patients at 3 (p =.001) and 6 months (p <.001) after COVID-19. In transplant patients, female gender (OR = 13.49, 95% CI: 2.17-83.8), a longer interval since transplantation (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36), and therapy with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (OR = 7.11, 95% CI: 1.47-34.50) were independently associated with persistence of antibodies beyond 6 months after COVID-19. Therefore, as compared with immunocompetent patients, liver transplant recipients show a lower prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and more pronounced antibody levels decline

Real-world effectiveness of caplacizumab vs the standard of care in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

Immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) is a thrombotic microangiopathy caused by anti-ADAMTS13 antibodies. Caplacizumab is approved for adults with an acute episode of iTTP in conjunction with plasma exchange (PEX) and immunosuppression. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the safety and efficacy of caplacizumab vs the standard of care and assess the effect of the concomitant use of rituximab. A retrospective study from the Spanish TTP Registry of patients treated with caplacizumab vs those who did not receive it was conducted. A total of 155 patients with iTTP (77 caplacizumab, 78 no caplacizumab) were included. Patients initially treated with caplacizumab had fewer exacerbations (4.5% vs 20.5%; P < .05) and less refractoriness (4.5% vs 14.1%; P < .05) than those who were not treated. Time to clinical response was shorter when caplacizumab was used as initial treatment vs caplacizumab used after refractoriness or exacerbation. The multivariate analysis showed that its use in the first 3 days after PEX was associated with a lower number of PEX (odds ratio, 7.5; CI, 2.3-12.7; P < .05) and days of hospitalization (odds ratio, 11.2; CI, 5.6-16.9; P < .001) compared with standard therapy. There was no difference in time to clinical remission in patients treated with caplacizumab compared with the use of rituximab. No severe adverse event was described in the caplacizumab group. In summary, caplacizumab reduced exacerbations and refractoriness compared with standard of care regimens. When administered within the first 3 days after PEX, it also provided a faster clinical response, reducing hospitalization time and the need for PEX

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field