A mathematical framework to quantify the masking effect associated with the confidence intervals of measures of disproportionality

Background: The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of measures of disproportionality (Lower95CI) is widely used in signal detection. Masking is a statistical issue by which true signals of disproportionate reporting are hidden by the presence of other medicines. The primary objective of our study is to develop and validate a mathematical framework for assessing the masking effect of Lower95CI. Methods: We have developed our new algorithm based on the masking ratio (MR) developed for the measures of disproportionality. A MR for the Lower95CI (MRCI) is proposed. A simulation study to validate this algorithm was also conducted. Results: We have established the existence of a very close mathematical relation between MR and MRCI. For a given drug–event pair, the same product will be responsible for the highest masking effect with the measure of disproportionality and its Lower95CI. The extent of masking is likely to be very similar across the two methods. An important proportion of identical drug–event associations affected by the presence of an important masking effect is revealed by the unmasking exercise, whether the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) or its confidence interval are used. Conclusion: The detection of the masking effect of Lower95CI can be automated. The real benefits of this unmasking in terms of new true-positive signals (rate of true-positive/false-positive) or time gained by the revealing of signals using this method have not been fully assessed. These benefits should be demonstrated in the context of prospective studies. </jats:sec

Dynamics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Following Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Correlation with Commercial Serologic Tests:A Reappraisal and Indirect Comparison with Vaccinated Subjects

Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) represent the real source of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections by preventing the virus from entering target cells. The gold standard in the detection of these antibodies is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). As these experiments must be done in a very secure environment, other techniques based on pseudoviruses: pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) or surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) have been developed. Binding assays, on the other hand, measure total antibodies or IgG, IgM, and IgA directed against one epitope of the SARS-CoV-2, independently of their neutralizing capacity. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of six commercial binding assays to the pVNT and sVNT. In this study, we used blood samples from a cohort of 62 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Based on the results of the neutralizing assays, adapted cut-offs for the binding assays were calculated. The use of these adapted cut-offs does not permit to improve the accuracy of the serological assays and we did not find an adapted cut-off able to improve the capacity of these tests to detect NAbs. For a part of the population, a longitudinal follow-up with at least two samples for the same patient was performed. From day 14 to day 291, more than 75% of the samples were positive for NAbs (n = 87/110, 79.1%). Interestingly, 6 months post symptoms onset, the majority of the samples (N = 44/52, 84.6%) were still positive for NAbs. This is in sharp contrast with the results we obtained 6 months post-vaccination in our cohort of healthcare workers who have received the two-dose regimens of BNT162b2. In this cohort of vaccinated subjects, 43% (n = 25/58) of the participants no longer exhibit NAbs activity 180 days after the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2

Mychael Danna: l'atípic

Abstract not availabl

Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody with Pseudotyped Virus-based Test on HEK-293T hACE2 Cells

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are of particular importance because they can prevent binding of the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor present at the surface of human cells, preventing virus entry into the host cells. The gold standard method for detection of NAbs is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Based on the measurement of cell lysis due to viral infection, this test is able to detect antibodies that prevent cell infection (Muruato et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2021). This technique requires the use of live pathogens, i.e., SARS-CoV-2 in this case, and must be done in a biosafety level 3 (BL3) laboratory. In addition, it requires expensive installations, skillful and meticulous staff, and a high workload, which prevents its wide implementation even in research laboratories. A SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus will express the S protein responsible for cell entrance, but will not express the pathogenic genetic material of the virus, making them less dangerous for laboratory staff and the environment. Graphic abstract: [Image: see text

Long-Term Survival, Vascular Occlusive Events and Efficacy Biomarkers of First-Line Treatment of CML:A Meta-Analysis

Large randomized clinical trials and prior meta-analyses indicate that second-generation BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) improve surrogate biomarkers in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) without providing survival benefits. The objective is to evaluate the long-term efficacy and the occurrence of vascular occlusion with second-generation BCR-ABL TKIs compared with imatinib in patients with CML. Three scientific databases, a clinical registry and abstracts from congress were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared a second-generation BCR-ABL TKI to imatinib in patients with CML. Outcomes extracted were overall survival, major molecular response and complete cytogenetic response, arterial occlusive events and venous thromboembolism. These data were synthesized by odds ratios using a fixed-effect model. This meta-analysis included 4659 participants from 14 trials. Second-generation BCR-ABL TKIs did not improve overall survival compared with imatinib, even at longer follow-up (OR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.91-1.52)). They improved surrogate biomarkers at 12 and 24 months but increased the risk of arterial occlusion (OR, 2.81 (95% CI, 2.11-3.73)). The long-term benefits of second-generation TKIs are restricted to surrogate outcomes and do not translate into prolonged survival compared to imatinib. Given the long-term use, frontline therapy should be chosen carefully, with special attention to the patients' quality of life and cardiovascular risks