Identification of nitric oxide synthase in human and bovine oviduct

Nitric oxide synthase (NOS) is responsible for the biological production of nitric oxide (NO) in several organs. NOS activity has also been localized in the reproductive tract, although direct evidence for its presence in the human or bovine oviduct is still lacking. In the present study, four different techniques were used to identify the presence of NOS activity in human (n = 11) and bovine (n = 9) oviduct: (i) conversion of [3H]-L-arginine to [3H]-L-citrulline; (ii) production of nitrite/nitrate (NO2/NO3; stable NO metabolites); (iii) identification of NADPH-diaphorase activity; and (iv) immunostaining with antiserum to endothelial NOS. Cytosolic extracts from human ampullary segments of the Fallopian tube, obtained from post-partum patients (n = 4), converted [3H]-L-arginine to [3H]-L-citrulline (21.0 ± 8.8 fmol/mg protein/min). This conversion rate was significantly (P <0.05) reduced in the presence of either EDTA or N-monomethyl-L-arginine monoacetate (L-NMMA), an inhibitor of NOS activity. When bovine (n = 3) ampullary segments were incubated for 36 h in Hanks' balanced salt solution, the concentration of NO2/NO3 in the medium was increased (P <0.05) if segments were pretreated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS; an inducer of inducible NOS), but not after treatment with LPS + L-NMMA. Additionally, epithelial cells cultured from ampullary segments showed positive staining both for NADPH-diaphorase activity and with antiserum to endothelial NOS. The results of the present study provide direct evidence for the presence of both the Ca2+ -dependent constitutive form of NOS, as well as the inducible form of NOS activity in human and bovine oviduct. Since the oviduct plays a key role in the reproductive process, it is possible that the two forms of NOS may be involved in the physiological regulation of oviduct functio

Type of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and immunomodulatory treatment influence humoral immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. Identifying whether mRNA vaccines differ in immunogenicity and examining the effects of immunomodulatory treatments may support COVID-19 vaccination strategies. We aimed to conduct a long-term, model-based comparison of the humoral immunogenicity following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination in a cohort of IRD patients. Patients from the Swiss IRD cohort (SCQM), who assented to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were recruited between 3/2021-9/2021. Blood samples at baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (anti-S1). We examined differences in antibody levels depending on the vaccine and treatment at baseline while adjusting for age, disease, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 565 IRD patients provided eligible samples. Among monotherapies, rituximab, abatacept, JAKi, and TNFi had the highest odds of reduced anti-S1 responses compared to no medication. Patients on specific combination therapies showed significantly lower antibody responses than those on monotherapy. Irrespective of the disease, treatment, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection, the odds of higher antibody levels at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were, respectively, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.8 times higher with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 (p < 0.0001). With every year of age, the odds ratio of higher peak humoral immunogenicity following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 increased by 5% (p < 0.001), indicating a particular benefit for elderly patients. Our results suggest that in IRD patients, two-dose vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 results in higher anti-S1 levels, even more so in elderly patients

Type of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and immunomodulatory treatment influence humoral immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. Identifying whether mRNA vaccines differ in immunogenicity and examining the effects of immunomodulatory treatments may support COVID-19 vaccination strategies. We aimed to conduct a long-term, model-based comparison of the humoral immunogenicity following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination in a cohort of IRD patients. Patients from the Swiss IRD cohort (SCQM), who assented to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were recruited between 3/2021-9/2021. Blood samples at baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (anti-S1). We examined differences in antibody levels depending on the vaccine and treatment at baseline while adjusting for age, disease, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 565 IRD patients provided eligible samples. Among monotherapies, rituximab, abatacept, JAKi, and TNFi had the highest odds of reduced anti-S1 responses compared to no medication. Patients on specific combination therapies showed significantly lower antibody responses than those on monotherapy. Irrespective of the disease, treatment, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection, the odds of higher antibody levels at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were, respectively, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.8 times higher with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 (p < 0.0001). With every year of age, the odds ratio of higher peak humoral immunogenicity following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 increased by 5% (p < 0.001), indicating a particular benefit for elderly patients. Our results suggest that in IRD patients, two-dose vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 results in higher anti-S1 levels, even more so in elderly patients

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (&lt; 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and &gt; 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (&lt; 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (&lt; 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with &gt; 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (&lt; 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system