Dosis de refuerzo con la vacuna BNT162b2 en población que recibió el esquema de vacunación completa para COVID-19 en Perú: Un análisis crítico de la evidencia actual

Background: In Peru, the current immunization schedule for COVID-19 includes BBIBP-CorV, BNT162B2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Although the full immunization schedule is two doses, some countries have recently included a booster dose to their schedule. Methods: We conducted a search for scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of booster vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccine in a population with a complete vaccination schedule for COVID-19 in Peru. Evidence: Four evidence-based recommendation documents, one observational study and three ongoing phase III clinical trials were included for analysis. Conclusion: To date, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of adding a booster dose to the immunization schedule for COVID-19. The available evidence does not justify the use of a booster dose of BNT162B2 vaccine in a population that has previously received two doses of the aforementioned vaccines.Introducción: En el Perú, el programa actual de inmunización para COVID-19 comprende las vacunas BBIBP-CorV, BNT162B2 y ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Si bien el esquema de inmunización es de dos dosis, algunos países han incluido recientemente una dosis de refuerzo a su esquema. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda de evidencia científica sobre la eficacia y seguridad de la vacunación de refuerzo con la vacuna BNT162b2 en población con esquema de vacunación completa para COVID-19 en Perú. Evidencia incluida: Se consideraron cuatro documentos de recomendación basados en evidencia, un estudio observacional y tres ensayos clínicos fase III en curso. Conclusión: A la fecha, no existe evidencia suficiente sobre la eficacia de agregar una dosis de refuerzo al esquema de inmunización para COVID-19. La evidencia disponible no permite justificar el uso de una dosis de refuerzo con la vacuna BNT162B2 en población que recibió previamente dos dosis de las vacunas anteriormente mencionadas

Battle of Thermopylae: 300 Spartans (natural killer cells plus obinutuzumab) versus the immortal warriors (chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells) of Xerxes’ army

Aim: To analyze the effects of subcutaneous or intravenous rituximab + lymphokine-activated killer cells, obinutuzumab or ibrutinib on natural killer (NK) cell levels in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma patients. Patients & methods: The distribution of peripheral blood NK cells of 31 patients was analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: We detected a decrease of NK cells in peripheral blood below normal range after obinutuzumab treatment. During maintenance treatment with subcutaneous rituximab, an NK cell reduction was less pronounced than after intravenous rituximab treatment, despite lymphokineactivated killer cell infusions. Conclusion: After one dose of obinutuzumab, each NK cell in peripheral blood destroys 25 leukemic cells. Lay abstract: The standard treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma is chemotherapy in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, resulting in the destruction of the immune system, or a ‘Kamikaze effect’. Unfortunately, immunotherapy with rituximab or obinutuzumab may be of limited efficacy when the immunological system is overwhelmed by abundant tumor cells or is diminished by chemotherapy, which eliminates effector immune cells such as natural killer cells before they would be able to kill the whole tumor. Hence, it is important to measure the number of immune cells to ensure that during the encounter of effector cells with tumor cells, sufficient ‘warriors’ can win the battle against the tumor. Otherwise, something akin to the Battle of Thermopylae can happen where a limited number of Spartan warriors faced a huge army and were defeated in the end

Battle of Thermopylae: 300 Spartans (natural killer cells plus obinutuzumab) versus the immortal warriors (chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells) of Xerxes’ army

Aim: To analyze the effects of subcutaneous or intravenous rituximab + lymphokine-activated killer cells, obinutuzumab or ibrutinib on natural killer (NK) cell levels in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma patients. Patients & methods: The distribution of peripheral blood NK cells of 31 patients was analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: We detected a decrease of NK cells in peripheral blood below normal range after obinutuzumab treatment. During maintenance treatment with subcutaneous rituximab, an NK cell reduction was less pronounced than after intravenous rituximab treatment, despite lymphokineactivated killer cell infusions. Conclusion: After one dose of obinutuzumab, each NK cell in peripheral blood destroys 25 leukemic cells. Lay abstract: The standard treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma is chemotherapy in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, resulting in the destruction of the immune system, or a ‘Kamikaze effect’. Unfortunately, immunotherapy with rituximab or obinutuzumab may be of limited efficacy when the immunological system is overwhelmed by abundant tumor cells or is diminished by chemotherapy, which eliminates effector immune cells such as natural killer cells before they would be able to kill the whole tumor. Hence, it is important to measure the number of immune cells to ensure that during the encounter of effector cells with tumor cells, sufficient ‘warriors’ can win the battle against the tumor. Otherwise, something akin to the Battle of Thermopylae can happen where a limited number of Spartan warriors faced a huge army and were defeated in the end

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy