Antibody levels to multiple malaria vaccine candidate antigens in relation to clinical malaria episodes in children in the Kasena-Nankana district of Northern Ghana

BACKGROUND: Considering the natural history of malaria of continued susceptibility to infection and episodes of illness that decline in frequency and severity over time, studies which attempt to relate immune response to protection must be longitudinal and have clearly specified definitions of immune status. Putative vaccines are expected to protect against infection, mild or severe disease or reduce transmission, but so far it has not been easy to clearly establish what constitutes protective immunity or how this develops naturally, especially among the affected target groups. The present study was done in under six year old children to identify malaria antigens which induce antibodies that correlate with protection from Plasmodium falciparum malaria. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, the multiplex assay was used to measure IgG antibody levels to 10 malaria antigens (GLURP R0, GLURP R2, MSP3 FVO, AMA1 FVO, AMA1 LR32, AMA1 3D7, MSP1 3D7, MSP1 FVO, LSA-1and EBA175RII) in 325 children aged 1 to 6 years in the Kassena Nankana district of northern Ghana. The antigen specific antibody levels were then related to the risk of clinical malaria over the ensuing year using a negative binomial regression model. RESULTS: IgG levels generally increased with age. The risk of clinical malaria decreased with increasing antibody levels. Except for FMPOII-LSA, (p = 0.05), higher IgG levels were associated with reduced risk of clinical malaria (defined as axillary temperature ≥37.5°C and parasitaemia of ≥5000 parasites/ul blood) in a univariate analysis, upon correcting for the confounding effect of age. However, in a combined multiple regression analysis, only IgG levels to MSP1-3D7 (Incidence rate ratio = 0.84, [95% C.I.= 0.73, 0.97, P = 0.02]) and AMA1 3D7 (IRR = 0.84 [95% C.I.= 0.74, 0.96, P = 0.01]) were associated with a reduced risk of clinical malaria over one year of morbidity surveillance. CONCLUSION: The data from this study support the view that a multivalent vaccine involving different antigens is most likely to be more effective than a monovalent one. Functional assays, like the parasite growth inhibition assay will be necessary to confirm if these associations reflect functional roles of antibodies to MSP1-3D7 and AMA1-3D7 in this population

Detection of microRNA Expression in Human Peripheral Blood Microvesicles

MicroRNAs (miRNA) are small non-coding RNAs that regulate translation of mRNA and protein. Loss or enhanced expression of miRNAs is associated with several diseases, including cancer. However, the identification of circulating miRNA in healthy donors is not well characterized. Microvesicles, also known as exosomes or microparticles, circulate in the peripheral blood and can stimulate cellular signaling. In this study, we hypothesized that under normal healthy conditions, microvesicles contain miRNAs, contributing to biological homeostasis.Microvesicles were isolated from the plasma of normal healthy individuals. RNA was isolated from both the microvesicles and matched mononuclear cells and profiled for 420 known mature miRNAs by real-time PCR. Hierarchical clustering of the data sets indicated significant differences in miRNA expression between peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and plasma microvesicles. We observed 71 miRNAs co-expressed between microvesicles and PBMC. Notably, we found 33 and 4 significantly differentially expressed miRNAs in the plasma microvesicles and mononuclear cells, respectively. Prediction of the gene targets and associated biological pathways regulated by the detected miRNAs was performed. The majority of the miRNAs expressed in the microvesicles from the blood were predicted to regulate cellular differentiation of blood cells and metabolic pathways. Interestingly, a select few miRNAs were also predicted to be important modulators of immune function.This study is the first to identify and define miRNA expression in circulating plasma microvesicles of normal subjects. The data generated from this study provides a basis for future studies to determine the predictive role of peripheral blood miRNA signatures in human disease and will enable the definition of the biological processes regulated by these miRNA

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

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Morbidite et mortalite des naissances intra-hospitalieres du centre hospitalier Universitaire de Yaounde, Cameroun

C'est une étude de cohorte de naissances intra-hospitalières au CHU de Yaoundé pour déterminer la mortalité néonatale et périnatale afin de cibler des interventions en vue d'améliorer la prise en charge du nouveau-né. 1131 accouchements ont été enregistrés de la période de Janvier 1997 à Juin 1998. Des critères cliniques définis au préalable ont été appliqués aux nouveaunés, et les données étaient collectées à partir du régistre de la maternité et du dossier du nouveau-né. 1022 naissances vivantes, parmi lesquels 145 (14%) étaient référées à l'unité de néonatalogie. 94 (65%) d'entre eux étaient de faible poids de naissance, 83 (57%) étaient des prématurés. La mortalité néonatale était de 35,8 o/oo, et la mortalité périnatale était de 92 o/oo. Des interventions efficaces sont à définir pour réduire cette mortalité surtout plus élevée chez les nouveau-nés prématurés.Clinics in Mother and Child Health Vol. 2(2) 2005: 355-35

Massive chest wall resection and reconstruction for malignant disease

Christophoros N Foroulis,1 Athanassios D Kleontas,1 George Tagarakis,1 Chryssoula Nana,1 Ioannis Alexiou,1 Vasilis Grosomanidis,1 Paschalis Tossios,1 Elena Papadaki,2 Ioannis Kioumis,2 Sofia Baka,3 Paul Zarogoulidis,2 Kyriakos Anastasiadis11Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Aristotle University School of Medicine, AHEPA University Hospital, 2Pulmonary Department-Oncology Unit, &ldquo;G. Papanikolaou&rdquo; General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 3Oncology Department, European Interbalkan Medical Center, Thessaloniki, GreeceObjective: Malignant chest wall tumors are rare neoplasms. Resection with wide-free margins is an important prognostic factor, and massive chest wall resection and reconstruction are often necessary. A recent case series of 20 consecutive patients is reported in order to find any possible correlation between tumor histology, extent of resection, type of reconstruction, and adjuvant treatment with short- and long-term outcomes.Methods: Twenty patients were submitted to chest wall resection and reconstruction for malignant chest wall neoplasms between 2006 and 2014. The mean age (ten males) was 59&plusmn;4&nbsp;years. The size and histology of the tumor, the technique of reconstruction, and the short- and long-term follow-up records were noted.Results: The median maximum diameter of tumors was 10&nbsp;cm (5.4&ndash;32&nbsp;cm). Subtotal sternal resection was performed in nine cases, and the resection of multiple ribs was performed in eleven cases. The median area of chest wall defect was 108&nbsp;cm2 (60&ndash;340&nbsp;cm2). Histology revealed soft tissue, bone, and cartilage sarcomas in 16 cases (80%), most of them chondrosarcomas. The rest of the tumors was metastatic tumors in two cases and localized malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in one case. The chest wall defect was reconstructed by using the &ldquo;sandwich technique&rdquo; (propylene mesh/methyl methacrylate/propylene mesh) in nine cases of large anterior defects or by using a 2&nbsp;mm polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) mesh in nine cases of lateral or posterior defects. Support from a plastic surgeon was necessary to cover the full-thickness chest wall defects in seven cases. Adjuvant oncologic treatment was administered in 13 patients. Local recurrences were observed in five cases where surgical reintervention was finally necessary in two cases. Recurrences were associated with larger tumors, histology of malignant fibrous histiocytoma, and initial incomplete resection or misdiagnosis made by nonthoracic surgeons. Three patients died during the study period because of recurrent disease or complications of treatment for recurrent disease.Conclusion: Chest wall tumors are in their majority mesenchymal neoplasms, which often require major chest wall resection for their eradication. Long-term survival is expected in low-grade tumors where a radical resection is achieved, while big tumors and histology of malignant fibrous histiocytoma are connected with the increase rate of recurrence.Keywords: chest wall tumors, chest wall resection, chest wall reconstruction, soft tissue sarcomas, sternal tumors, chondrosarcoma&nbsp

The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group.

UnlabelledOsteoporosis causes an elevated fracture risk. We propose the continued use of T-scores as one means for diagnosis but recommend that, alternatively, hip fracture; osteopenia-associated vertebral, proximal humerus, pelvis, or some wrist fractures; or FRAX scores with ≥3% (hip) or 20% (major) 10-year fracture risk also confer an osteoporosis diagnosis.IntroductionOsteoporosis is a common disorder of reduced bone strength that predisposes to an increased risk for fractures in older individuals. In the USA, the standard criterion for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men is a T-score of  ≤ -2.5 at the lumbar spine, femur neck, or total hip by bone mineral density testing.MethodsUnder the direction of the National Bone Health Alliance, 17 clinicians and clinical scientists were appointed to a working group charged to determine the appropriate expansion of the criteria by which osteoporosis can be diagnosed.ResultsThe group recommends that postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years should be diagnosed with osteoporosis if they have a demonstrable elevated risk for future fractures. This includes having a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 at the spine or hip as one method for diagnosis but also permits a diagnosis for individuals in this population who have experienced a hip fracture with or without bone mineral density (BMD) testing and for those who have osteopenia by BMD who sustain a vertebral, proximal humeral, pelvic, or, in some cases, distal forearm fracture. Finally, the term osteoporosis should be used to diagnose individuals with an elevated fracture risk based on the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm, FRAX.ConclusionsAs new ICD-10 codes become available, it is our hope that this new understanding of what osteoporosis represents will allow for an appropriate diagnosis when older individuals are recognized as being at an elevated risk for fracture

The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group.

UnlabelledOsteoporosis causes an elevated fracture risk. We propose the continued use of T-scores as one means for diagnosis but recommend that, alternatively, hip fracture; osteopenia-associated vertebral, proximal humerus, pelvis, or some wrist fractures; or FRAX scores with ≥3% (hip) or 20% (major) 10-year fracture risk also confer an osteoporosis diagnosis.IntroductionOsteoporosis is a common disorder of reduced bone strength that predisposes to an increased risk for fractures in older individuals. In the USA, the standard criterion for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men is a T-score of  ≤ -2.5 at the lumbar spine, femur neck, or total hip by bone mineral density testing.MethodsUnder the direction of the National Bone Health Alliance, 17 clinicians and clinical scientists were appointed to a working group charged to determine the appropriate expansion of the criteria by which osteoporosis can be diagnosed.ResultsThe group recommends that postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years should be diagnosed with osteoporosis if they have a demonstrable elevated risk for future fractures. This includes having a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 at the spine or hip as one method for diagnosis but also permits a diagnosis for individuals in this population who have experienced a hip fracture with or without bone mineral density (BMD) testing and for those who have osteopenia by BMD who sustain a vertebral, proximal humeral, pelvic, or, in some cases, distal forearm fracture. Finally, the term osteoporosis should be used to diagnose individuals with an elevated fracture risk based on the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm, FRAX.ConclusionsAs new ICD-10 codes become available, it is our hope that this new understanding of what osteoporosis represents will allow for an appropriate diagnosis when older individuals are recognized as being at an elevated risk for fracture