Długookresowe trendy oraz czynniki kształtujace chemizm wód opadowych w Tatrach, Polska

The results of rainwater chemistry monitoring in the Tatra Mountains, Poland, during the periods1993–1994 and 2002–2019 were used to determine long-term trends and the factors influencing rainwater chemistry in the last two decades. In the early 1990’s, the study area was characterized by prominent acid rains with a pH of 4.4 that affected surface water, meadows, and forest ecosystems. A rising pH temporal trend has been observed during the following years, indicating improving air quality. This trend has also been observed in measured ionic concentrations and reduced wet deposition loads of sulfur- and nitrogen-containing acid-forming compounds. The neutralization capacity of rainwater in Kasprowy Wierch increased over the last twenty years and has mostly been dominated by NH4+. The ammonium availability index has been steadily increasing between years 2002 and 2019 but remains less than 1. This statistically significant relationship also indicates that a portion of neutralization occurs in the lower part of the atmosphere due to ammonium-related neutralization processes. The acidic potential (AP) and the ratio AP/NP (acidic potential/neutralization potential) have been declining during the same time. The stated trends in rainwater chemistry reflect the transformation to more environmentally sustainable economies in the region. Similar changes have been observed in neighboring countries in the region, including Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania.Wyniki badań wód opadowych w Tatrach w okresach 1993-1994 i 2002-2019 zostały wykorzystane do określenia długookresowych trendów oraz czynników wpływających na ich chemizm w ciągu ostatnich dwóch dekad. Na początku lat 90. w obszarze badań występowały kwaśne deszcze, o odczynie pH=4,39, prowadzące do zmian w ekosystemach wodnych tatrzańskich jezior oraz w ekosystemach leśnych i łąkowych. W kolejnych latach odczyn wód wykazywał tendencję wzrostową, świadczącą o poprawie stanu atmosfery. Potwierdziły to również malejące w czasie stężenia oraz roczne ładunki jednostkowe kwasotwórczych związków siarki i azotu. Neutralizacja wody opadowej na Kasprowym Wierch w ciągu ostatnich dwudziestu lat wzrastała i wynikała głównie z dominacji jonów NH4 +. Wzrastający w latach 2002-2019 wskaźnik dostępności amonu był niższy od 1. Wartości potencjału kwasowości (AP) i stosunek AP/NP (wskaźnik potencjału neutralizacji) obniżały się w tym samym czasie. Stwierdzone trendy zmian w chemizmie opadów atmosferycznych wynikają z przekształceń gospodarczych kraju i zobowiązań Polski wobec międzynarodowych umów z sąsiadującymi państwami. Transgraniczne zobowiązania poskutkowały poprawą stanu atmosfery nie tylko w Polsce, ale również na Słowacji, w Czechach i na Litwie. Umowy międzynarodowe i globalne monitorowanie jakości wody opadowej są ważne ze względu na ogólnoświatową naturę transportu zanieczyszczenia atmosferycznego

Safety and efficacy of the miR-124 upregulator ABX464 (obefazimod, 50 and 100 mg per day) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate and/or anti-TNFα therapy: a placebo-controlled phase II study

International audienceObjective This phase 2a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a first-in-class drug candidate ABX464 (obefazimod, 50 mg and 100 mg per day), which upregulates the biogenesis of the mRNA inhibitor micro-RNA (miR)-124, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in 60 patients (1:1:1 ratio) with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have inadequate response to MTX or/and to an anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) therapy.Methods The primary end point was the safety of ABX464; efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, disease activity scores (DAS) 28, simplified disease activity score, clinical disease activity score), European League Against Rheumatism response, DAS28 low disease activity or remission.Results ABX464 50 mg was safe and well tolerated. Two serious adverse events were reported (one on placebo group and one on ABX464 100 mg). Eleven patients were withdrawn for AEs (9 patients on 100 mg, 1 on 50 mg and 1 on placebo). Drug discontinuation was mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders. No cases of opportunistic infection, no malignancies and no death were reported. Compared with placebo, ABX464 50 mg showed significantly higher proportions of patients achieving ACR20 and ACR50 responses at week 12. DAS28-C reactive protein (CRP) and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate decreased significantly and rates of categorical DAS28-CRP response or CDAI remission increased significantly on ABX464 at week 12. A significant upregulation of miR-124 was observed in blood for every patient dosed with ABX464.Conclusion ABX464 50 mg was safe, well tolerated and showed a promising efficacy. Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal AEs led to a high drop-out rate of patients on ABX464 100 mg, which may not be a relevant dose to use. These findings warrant exploration of ABX464 at 50 mg per day or less for treating patients with RA.Trial registration name Phase IIa randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multiple dose study on ABX464 in combination with MTX, in patients with moderate to severe active RA who have inadequate response to MTX or/and to an anti- TNFα therapy or intolerance to anti-TNFα therapy. EUDRACT number: 2018-004677-27 Trial registration number NCT03813199

The Beneficial Effect of the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Healthcare Workers in an Infectious Diseases Center

Introduction: Healthcare workers in Poland received a booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Manufacturer: Pfizer, Inc., and BioNTech; Moguncja, Germany) at the beginning of October 2021. Here, we report on the preliminary results of an ongoing clinical study into the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 of healthcare workers previously exposed to the virus, with or without evidence of past infection, in the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw before and after the vaccine booster dose. Methods: Blood samples were collected on the day the vaccine booster dose was administered and again 14 days later. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (against the n-protein, indicative of disease) and S-RBD (indicative of a response to vaccination) were measured. Results: One hundred and ten health care workers from the Hospital for Infectious Diseases were included in the study. The percentage of subjects with a positive test for anti-n-protein IgG antibodies at both time points remained unchanged (16, 14%), while a statistically significant increase in the percentage of subjects producing high levels of S-RBD antibodies (i.e., >433 BAU/mL) was observed (from 23, 21% to 109, 99%; p = 0.00001). Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that the booster dose of the vaccine significantly increases the percentage of people with high levels of S-RBD antibodies, regardless of previous contact with the virus, which may indicate greater protection against both the disease and a severe course of COVID-19

The Beneficial Effect of the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Healthcare Workers in an Infectious Diseases Center

Introduction: Healthcare workers in Poland received a booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Manufacturer: Pfizer, Inc., and BioNTech; Moguncja, Germany) at the beginning of October 2021. Here, we report on the preliminary results of an ongoing clinical study into the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 of healthcare workers previously exposed to the virus, with or without evidence of past infection, in the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw before and after the vaccine booster dose. Methods: Blood samples were collected on the day the vaccine booster dose was administered and again 14 days later. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (against the n-protein, indicative of disease) and S-RBD (indicative of a response to vaccination) were measured. Results: One hundred and ten health care workers from the Hospital for Infectious Diseases were included in the study. The percentage of subjects with a positive test for anti-n-protein IgG antibodies at both time points remained unchanged (16, 14%), while a statistically significant increase in the percentage of subjects producing high levels of S-RBD antibodies (i.e., >433 BAU/mL) was observed (from 23, 21% to 109, 99%; p = 0.00001). Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that the booster dose of the vaccine significantly increases the percentage of people with high levels of S-RBD antibodies, regardless of previous contact with the virus, which may indicate greater protection against both the disease and a severe course of COVID-19

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P17 versus reference adalimumab in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from a randomized study

Abstract Background To demonstrate equivalent efficacy of the proposed high-concentration (100 mg/ml), citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 to European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This randomized, double-blind phase III study ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03789292) randomized (1:1) subjects with active RA at 52 centers to receive CT-P17 or EU-adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks until week 52. Results to week 24 are reported here. The primary endpoint was 20% improvement by American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response rate at week 24. Equivalence was concluded if the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the estimate of treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins: − 15 to 15% (95% CI; European Medicines Agency assumption); − 12 to 15% (90% CI; Food and Drug Administration assumption). Additional efficacy, pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity endpoints were evaluated. Results 648 subjects were randomized (324 CT-P17; 324 EU-adalimumab). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was 82.7% (n = 268/324) in both groups (intention-to-treat population). The 95% CI (− 5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (− 4.98 to 4.98) were within predefined equivalence margins for both assumptions and equivalent efficacy was concluded. Additional endpoints and overall safety were comparable between groups. Mean trough serum concentrations of CT-P17 were slightly higher than those of EU-adalimumab. Immunogenicity was slightly lower numerically for the CT-P17 group than for the EU-adalimumab group. Conclusions CT-P17 and EU-adalimumab have equivalent efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity in subjects with active RA. Overall safety of CT-P17 is consistent with the known safety profile of reference adalimumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03789292 . Registered 28 December 2018—retrospectively registered

Ixekizumab for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-X): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Ixekizumab, a high-affinity interleukin-17A (IL-17A) monoclonal antibody, has previously shown efficacy in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, an IL-17 inhibitor, in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Here, we report the primary results of COAST-X. Methods: COAST-X was a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study done at 107 sites in 15 countries in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with active axial spondyloarthritis without definite radiographic sacroiliitis (non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis), objective signs of inflammation (via MRI or C-reactive protein), and an inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous 80 mg ixekizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W), or placebo. Changing background medications or switching to open-label ixekizumab Q2W, or both, was allowed after week 16 at investigator discretion. Primary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-40 (ASAS40) response (defined as an improvement of 40% or more and an absolute improvement from baseline of 2 units or more [range 0–10] in at least three of the four domains [patient global, spinal pain, function, and inflammation] without any worsening in the remaining one domain) at weeks 16 and 52. Patients who switched to open-label ixekizumab were imputed as non-responders in logistic regression analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02757352. Findings: Between Aug 2, 2016, and Jan 29, 2018, 303 patients were enrolled (105 to placebo, 96 to ixekizumab Q4W, and 102 to ixekizumab Q2W). Both primary endpoints were met: ASAS40 at week 16 (ixekizumab Q4W: 34 [35%] of 96, p=0·0094 vs placebo; ixekizumab Q2W: 41 [40%] of 102, p=0·0016; placebo: 20 [19%] of 105) and ASAS40 at week 52 (ixekizumab Q4W: 29 [30%] of 96, p=0·0045; ixekizumab Q2W: 32 [31%] of 102, p=0·0037; placebo: 14 [13%] of 105). 60 (57%) of 104 patients in the placebo group, 63 (66%) of 96 in the ixekizumab Q4W group, and 79 (77%) of 102 in the ixekizumab Q2W group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the ixekizumab groups were nasopharyngitis and injection site reaction. Of the treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest, there was one case of serious infection in the ixekizumab Q4W group. The frequency of serious adverse events was low (four [1%] of 302) and similar across the three groups. There were no malignancies or deaths. No new safety signals were identified. Interpretation: Ixekizumab was superior to placebo for improving signs and symptoms in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Reports of adverse events were similar to those of previous ixekizumab studies. Ixekizumab offers a potential therapeutic option for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who had an inadequate response or were intolerant to NSAID therapy. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company