'Recommendations for deprescribing of medication in the last phase of life: an international Delphi study'.

CONTEXT Medications may become inappropriate for patients in the last phase of life and may even compromise their quality of life. OBJECTIVE To find consensus on recommendations regarding deprescribing of medications for adult patients with a life expectancy of six months or less. METHODS Experts working in palliative care or other relevant disciplines were asked to participate in this international Delphi study. Existing tools for deprescribing of medication in the last phase of life were integrated in a list of 42 recommendations regarding potential deprescription of various medication types. In two Delphi rounds, experts were asked to rate their agreement with each recommendation on a 5-point Likert-scale (strongly agree - strongly disagree). Recommendations were accepted, if at least 70% of the experts (strongly) agreed, the interquartile range (IQR) was one or less, and less than 10% strongly disagreed. RESULTS 47 experts from 10 countries participated (response rate 53%). In most cases (76%), consensus was reached on deprescribing recommendations for patients with a life expectancy of six months or less. The highest level of consensus was reached for recommendations on the deprescription of diuretics in case of decreasing fluid intake or increasing fluid loss, lipid modifying agents if prescribed for primary prevention, and vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants in case of high bleeding risk. CONCLUSION A high level of consensus was reached on recommendations on potential deprescription of several medications for patients with a life expectancy of six months or less

Immunogenicity of a bivalent Omicron BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccination in people with HIV in the Netherlands

Objective We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH). Design Prospective observational cohort study. Methods PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those < 45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1:2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses, and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination. Results Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 (N = 35) or BNT162b2 (N = 5) following mRNA-based (N = 29) or vector-based (N = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53–59). Their median CD4+ T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511–965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was < 50 copies/mL in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH (4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.24–6.19) and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42–4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH. Conclusion A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well-treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH

Immunogenicity of a bivalent Omicron BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccination in people with HIV in the Netherlands

Objective We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH). Design Prospective observational cohort study. Methods PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those < 45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1:2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses, and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination. Results Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 (N = 35) or BNT162b2 (N = 5) following mRNA-based (N = 29) or vector-based (N = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53–59). Their median CD4+ T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511–965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was < 50 copies/mL in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH (4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.24–6.19) and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42–4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH. Conclusion A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well-treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH

Immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH).DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study.METHODS: PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those &lt; 45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1:2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses, and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination.RESULTS:Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 (N = 35) or BNT162b2 (N = 5) following mRNA-based (N = 29) or vector-based (N = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-59). Their median CD4+ T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511-965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was &lt; 50 copies/mL in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH (4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.24-6.19) and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42-4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH.CONCLUSION: A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well-treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH.</p

Immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH).DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study.METHODS: PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those &lt; 45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1:2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses, and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination.RESULTS:Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 (N = 35) or BNT162b2 (N = 5) following mRNA-based (N = 29) or vector-based (N = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-59). Their median CD4+ T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511-965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was &lt; 50 copies/mL in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH (4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.24-6.19) and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42-4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH.CONCLUSION: A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well-treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH.</p

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.</p

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.</p

Нові явища у функціонально-стилістичному вживанні протиставних сполучників в українській літературній мові кінця ХХ — початку ХХІ століть

У статті досліджено зміни у функціонуванні найуживаніших протиставних сполучників у мові української преси та художньої літератури кінця ХХ — почат ку ХХІ століть, обґрунтовано слабку семантико-синтаксичну спеціалізацію протиставних сполучників та визначено їхні транспозиційні можливості.In the article the changes in the functioning of the most used adversative conjunctions in the language of Ukrainian press and artistic literature of the end of the XX — the beginning of the XXI centuries have been investigated, weak semantic-syntactic specialization of adversative conjunctions has been explained and their transisting resources have been determined

No association between use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers prior to hospital admission and clinical course of COVID-19 in the COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study

Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID-19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID-19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID-19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality

P3MC: A double blind parallel group randomised placebo controlled trial of Propranolol and Pizotifen in preventing migraine in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A recent Cochrane Review demonstrated the remarkable lack of reliable clinical trials of migraine treatments for children, especially for the two most prescribed preventative treatments in the UK, <it>Propranolol </it>and <it>Pizotifen</it>.</p> <p>Migraine trials in both children and adults have high placebo responder rates, e.g. of 23%, but for a trial's results to be generalisable "placebo responders" should not be excluded and for a drug to be worthwhile it should be clearly superior, both clinically and statistically, to placebo.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Two multicentre, two arm double blind parallel group randomised controlled trials, with allocation ratio of 2:1 for each comparison, Propranolol versus placebo and Pizotifen versus placebo. The trial is designed to test whether Propranolol is superior to placebo and whether Pizotifen is superior to placebo for the prevention of migraine attacks in children aged 5 - 16 years referred to secondary care out-patient settings with frequent migraine (2-6/4 weeks). The primary outcome measure is the number of migraine attacks during trial weeks 11 to 14.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A strength of this trial is the participation of clinically well defined migraine patients who will also be approached to help with future longer-term follow-up studies.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN97360154</p