Impact of immune activation and inflammation on the susceptibility to HIV infection and disease progression in HIV serodiscordant and seroconcordant couples

Includes bibliographical references.The biological correlates of protection against HIV infection remain poorly characterized, hindering the development of an effective prevention strategy. Studies of individuals who resist HIV infection or progress more slowly after being infected are important for the conception of appropriate approaches for mimicking the effective responses against HIV infection or progression. The role of immune activation and chronic inflammation in the modulation of HIV acquisition risk and/or rate of HIV disease progression has been proposed as one of the most important mechanisms determining risk and pathogenesis but is not fully understood. A state of immune quiescence has been associated with protection against HIV infection and slower disease progression. To explore potential risk factors associated with HIV transmission and HIV disease progression, this dissertation investigates the relationship between clinical and biological biomarkers and resistance to HIV infection or disease progression (including viral load, CD4 counts, cellular activation, soluble inflammatory and regulatory cytokines, and HIV co-receptor expression) in stable long-term HIV seroconcordant and serodiscordant couples

Preprocedural neutrophil count predicts outcome in patients with advanced peripheral vascular disease undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty

BackgroundThe neutrophil count has been associated with adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention. There are limited data on risk stratification of patients with advanced peripheral vascular disease (PVD) using white blood cell (WBC) subtypes. This study assessed the association of total and differential WBC counts with adverse outcome in patients with advanced PVD undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA).MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study, consecutive de novo procedures were analyzed for patients with Rutherford category 4 or 5 PVD who underwent successful nonemergency PTA. Cardiovascular risk factors, baseline total and differential WBC counts, and angiographic data were recorded. Primary outcome was a composite of events of target vessel revascularization (repeat PTA or vascular bypass operation) or lower limb amputation.ResultsA total of 101 patients were studied. Their mean age was 76 ± 10 years, 54% had diabetes mellitus, 68% were hypertensive, and 12% had had previous myocardial infarction. We observed 29 events during a median period of 14 months (interquartile range, 4-26). Cox regression analysis found diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR], 4.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-16.14; P = .02), Rutherford category 5 (OR, 4.18; 95% CI, 1.06-16.51; P = .04), poor tibial runoff (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.16-16.82; P = .03), and preprocedural neutrophil count in the third tertile (OR, 10.77; 95% CI, 2.19-52.91; P = .003) were independent predictors of outcome.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the preprocedural neutrophil count could be used in global risk factor assessment of patients with advanced PVD who are being considered for PTA. The neutrophil count may reflect the burden of atherosclerosis and tissue damage, and so could identify patients who need more aggressive intervention for advanced PVD

Outcomes of outpatient ureteral stenting without fluoroscopy at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

Background. Ureteral stenting is generally a theatre-based procedure that requires a multidisciplinary team and on-table imaging. Limited hospital bed numbers and theatre time in our centre in Cape Town, South Africa, have led us to explore an alternative approach.Objectives. To see whether outpatient insertion of ureteric stents under local anaesthesia without fluoroscopy was a possible and acceptable alternative to theatre-based ureteral stenting.Methods. Ureteral stenting (double-J stents and ureteric catheters) was performed with flexible cystoscopy under local anaesthesia and chemoprophylaxis, but without fluoroscopic guidance, in an outpatient setting. Every patient had an abdominal radiograph and an ultrasound scan of the kidney after the procedure to confirm stent position.Results. Three hundred and sixteen procedures (276 double-J stents and 40 ureteric catheters) were performed in 161 men and 155 women. The overall success rate for the procedures was 85.4%, independent of gender (p=0.87), age (p=0.13), type of device inserted (p=0.81) or unilateral/bilateral nature of the procedure (p=1.0). Procedures with a successful outcome were performed in a significantly (p<0.0001) shorter median time (10 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 5 - 15)) than failed procedures (20 minutes (IQR 10 - 30)). Patients with a pain score of >5 experienced a significantly (p=0.02) greater proportion of failure (27.3%) than patients with a pain score of ≤5 (12.5%). Difficulties were encountered in 23.7% of procedures, with a significantly higher proportion being registered in failed interventions compared with successful ones (82.6% v. 13.7%; p<0.0001).Conclusions. The procedure was easily mastered and technically simple, and represents savings in cost, time and human resources in our setting.

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online crosssectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences.http://www.plosone.orgam2022Veterinary Tropical Disease

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online cross-sectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences

Protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of tests for IgE-mediated food allergy

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30 September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1 October 2012 to 30 June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluations will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results: A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion: Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca