SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers.

Background: The research aimed to investigate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and their determinants in a large European cohort of more than 60,000 health workers. Methods: A multicentric retrospective cohort study, involving 12 European centers, was carried out within the ORCHESTRA project, collecting data up to 18 November 2021 on fully vaccinated health workers. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was investigated with its association with occupational and social-demographic characteristics (age, sex, job title, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody titer levels, and time from the vaccination course completion). Results: Among 64,172 health workers from 12 European health centers, 797 breakthrough infections were observed (cumulative incidence of 1.2%). The primary analysis using individual data on 8 out of 12 centers showed that age and previous infection significantly modified breakthrough infection rates. In the meta-analysis of aggregated data from all centers, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and the standardized antibody titer were inversely related to the risk of breakthrough infection (p = 0.008 and p = 0.007, respectively). Conclusion: The inverse correlation of antibody titer with the risk of breakthrough infection supports the evidence that vaccination plays a primary role in infection prevention, especially in health workers. Cellular immunity, previous clinical conditions, and vaccination timing should be further investigated

Limiting damage during infection:lessons from infection tolerance for novel therapeutics

The distinction between pathogen elimination and damage limitation during infection is beginning to change perspectives on infectious disease control, and has recently led to the development of novel therapies that focus on reducing the illness caused by pathogens ("damage limitation") rather than reducing pathogen burdens directly ("pathogen elimination"). While beneficial at the individual host level, the population consequences of these interventions remain unclear. To address this issue, we present a simple conceptual framework for damage limitation during infection that distinguishes between therapies that are either host-centric (pro-tolerance) or pathogen-centric (anti-virulence). We then draw on recent developments from the evolutionary ecology of disease tolerance to highlight some potential epidemiological and evolutionary responses of pathogens to medical interventions that target the symptoms of infection. Just as pathogens are known to evolve in response to antimicrobial and vaccination therapies, we caution that claims of "evolution-proof" anti-virulence interventions may be premature, and further, that in infections where virulence and transmission are linked, reducing illness without reducing pathogen burden could have non-trivial epidemiological and evolutionary consequences that require careful examination

Targeting the “Cytokine Storm” for therapeutic benefit

Inflammation is the body's first line of defense against infection or injury, responding to challenges by activating innate and adaptive responses. Microbes have evolved a diverse range of strategies to avoid triggering inflammatory responses. However, some pathogens, such as the influenza virus and the Gram-negative bacterium Francisella tularensis, do trigger life-threatening “cytokine storms” in the host which can result in significant pathology and ultimately death. For these diseases, it has been proposed that downregulating inflammatory immune responses may improve outcome. We review some of the current candidates for treatment of cytokine storms which may prove useful in the clinic in the future and compare them to more traditional therapeutic candidates that target the pathogen rather than the host response

N-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown a beneficial effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with a previous myocardial infarction or heart failure. We evaluated the potential benefit of such therapy in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease who had not had a myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we enrolled a cohort of patients who were followed by a network of 860 general practitioners in Italy. Eligible patients were men and women with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease but not myocardial infarction. Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil). The initially specified primary end point was the cumulative rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. At 1 year, after the event rate was found to be lower than anticipated, the primary end point was revised as time to death from cardiovascular causes or admission to the hospital for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Of the 12,513 patients enrolled, 6244 were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids and 6269 to placebo. With a median of 5 years of follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 1478 of 12,505 patients included in the analysis (11.8%), of whom 733 of 6239 (11.7%) had received n-3 fatty acids and 745 of 6266 (11.9%) had received placebo (adjusted hazard ratio with n-3 fatty acids, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.08; P=0.58). The same null results were observed for all the secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society