Immunological Outcomes of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Food Allergy

IgE-mediated food allergies are caused by adverse immunologic responses to food proteins. Allergic reactions may present locally in different tissues such as skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract and may result is systemic life-threatening reactions. During the last decades, the prevalence of food allergies has significantly increased throughout the world, and considerable efforts have been made to develop curative therapies. Food allergen immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic approach for food allergies that is based on the administration of increasing doses of culprit food extracts, or purified, and sometime modified food allergens. Different routes of administration for food allergen immunotherapy including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous regimens are being evaluated. Although a wealth of data from clinical food allergen immunotherapy trials has been obtained, a lack of consistency in assessed clinical and immunological outcome measures presents a major hurdle for evaluating these new treatments. Coordinated efforts are needed to establish standardized outcome measures to be applied in food allergy immunotherapy studies, allowing for better harmonization of data and setting the standards for the future research. Several immunological parameters have been measured in food allergen immunotherapy, including allergen-specific immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation, cytokines, and other soluble biomarkers, T cell and B cell responses and skin prick tests. In this review we discuss different immunological parameters and assess their applicability as potential outcome measures for food allergen immunotherapy that may be included in such a standardized set of outcome measures

StopCOVID cohort : An observational study of 3,480 patients admitted to the Sechenov University hospital network in Moscow city for suspected COVID-19 infection

© 2020 Oxford University Press. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Clinical Infectious Diseases following peer review. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1535.BACKGROUND: The epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in the Russian population are unknown. Information on the differences between laboratory-confirmed and clinically-diagnosed COVID-19 in real-life settings is lacking. METHODS: We extracted data from the medical records of adult patients who were consecutively admitted for suspected COVID-19 infection in Moscow, between April 8 and May 28, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 4261 patients hospitalised for suspected COVID-19, outcomes were available for 3480 patients (median age 56 years (interquartile range 45-66). The commonest comorbidities were hypertension, obesity, chronic cardiac disease and diabetes. Half of the patients (n=1728) had a positive RT-PCR while 1748 were negative on RT-PCR but had clinical symptoms and characteristic CT signs suggestive of COVID-19 infection.No significant differences in frequency of symptoms, laboratory test results and risk factors for in-hospital mortality were found between those exclusively clinically diagnosed or with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.In a multivariable logistic regression model the following were associated with in-hospital mortality; older age (per 1 year increase) odds ratio [OR] 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 - 1.06); male sex (OR 1.71, 1.24 - 2.37); chronic kidney disease (OR 2.99, 1.89 - 4.64); diabetes (OR 2.1, 1.46 - 2.99); chronic cardiac disease (OR 1.78, 1.24 - 2.57) and dementia (OR 2.73, 1.34 - 5.47). CONCLUSIONS: Age, male sex, and chronic comorbidities were risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The combination of clinical features were sufficient to diagnoseCOVID-19 infection indicating that laboratory testing is not critical in real-life clinical practice.Peer reviewe

Media Influence on Anxiety, Health Utility, and Health Beliefs Early in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic—a Survey Study

Background: The psychological effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and response are poorly understood. Objective: To understand the effects of the pandemic and response on anxiety and health utility in a nationally representative sample of US adults. Design: A de-identified, cross-sectional survey was administered at the end of April 2020. Probability weights were assigned using estimates from the 2018 American Community Survey and Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Estimates. Participants: US adults 18–85 years of age with landline, texting-enabled cellphone, or internet access. Intervention: Seven split-half survey blocks of 30 questions, assessing demographics, COVID-19-related health attitudes, and standardized measures of generalized self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, personality, and generic health utility. Main Measures: State/Trait anxiety scores, EQ-5D-3L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and demographic predictors of these scores. Key Results: Among 4855 respondents, 56.7% checked COVID-19-related news several times daily, and 84.4% at least once daily. Only 65.7% desired SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for themselves, and 70.1% for their child. Mean state anxiety (S-anxiety) score was significantly higher than mean trait anxiety (T-anxiety) score (44.9, 95%CI 43.5–46.3 vs. 41.6, 95%CI 38.7–44.5; p = 0.03), with both scores significantly higher than previously published norms. In an adjusted regression model, less frequent news viewing was associated with significantly lower S-anxiety score. Mean EQ-5D-3L VAS score for the population was significantly lower vs. established US normative data (71.4 CI 67.4–75.5, std. error 2 vs. societal mean 80, std. error 0.1; p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L VAS score was bimodal (highest with hourly and no viewing) and significantly reduced with less media viewership in an adjusted model. Conclusions: Among a nationally representative sample, there were higher S-anxiety and lower EQ-5D-3L VAS scores compared to non-pandemic normative data, indicative of a potential detrimental acute effect of the pandemic. More frequent daily media viewership was significantly associated with higher S-anxiety but also predictive of higher health utility, as measured by EQ-5D-3L VAS scores

Media Influence on Anxiety, Health Utility, and Health Beliefs Early in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic-a Survey Study

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2021. This is the accepted manuscript version of an article which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06554-yBackground: The psychological effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and response are poorly understood. Objective: To understand the effects of the pandemic and response on anxiety and health utility in a nationally representative sample of US adults. Design: A de-identified, cross-sectional survey was administered at the end of April 2020. Probability weights were assigned using estimates from the 2018 American Community Survey and Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Estimates. Participants: US adults 18–85 years of age with landline, texting-enabled cellphone, or internet access. Intervention: Seven split-half survey blocks of 30 questions, assessing demographics, COVID-19-related health attitudes, and standardized measures of generalized self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, personality, and generic health utility. Main Measures: State/Trait anxiety scores, EQ-5D-3L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and demographic predictors of these scores. Key Results: Among 4855 respondents, 56.7% checked COVID-19-related news several times daily, and 84.4% at least once daily. Only 65.7% desired SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for themselves, and 70.1% for their child. Mean state anxiety (S-anxiety) score was significantly higher than mean trait anxiety (T-anxiety) score (44.9, 95%CI 43.5–46.3 vs. 41.6, 95%CI 38.7–44.5; p = 0.03), with both scores significantly higher than previously published norms. In an adjusted regression model, less frequent news viewing was associated with significantly lower S-anxiety score. Mean EQ-5D-3L VAS score for the population was significantly lower vs. established US normative data (71.4 CI 67.4–75.5, std. error 2 vs. societal mean 80, std. error 0.1; p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L VAS score was bimodal (highest with hourly and no viewing) and significantly reduced with less media viewership in an adjusted model. Conclusions: Among a nationally representative sample, there were higher S-anxiety and lower EQ-5D-3L VAS scores compared to non-pandemic normative data, indicative of a potential detrimental acute effect of the pandemic. More frequent daily media viewership was significantly associated with higher S-anxiety but also predictive of higher health utility, as measured by EQ-5D-3L VAS scores.Peer reviewe

Monitoring nauchnoi zhizni antropologicheskogo soobshchestva (2015 g.)

«Антропологический форум» представляет материалы очередного опроса, который проводится ежегодно с целью мониторинга научной жизни российского антропологического сообщества. Цель опроса — подведение итогов научной жизни и выявление рейтинга наиболее значимых монографий, статей, рецензий и др. В этом году мониторинг приурочен к XI Конгрессу этнографов и антропологов России. Редколлегия журнала обратилась к ученым с просьбой указать те события научной жизни, которые были, с их точки зрения, наиболее значительными за истекшие пять лет и прокомментировать их выбор. В публикации представлены полные тексты присланных ответов

StopCOVID cohort: an observational study of 3,480 patients admitted to the Sechenov University hospital network in Moscow city for suspected COVID-19 infection

Background The epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Russian population are unknown. Information on the differences between laboratory-confirmed and clinically diagnosed COVID-19 in real-life settings is lacking. Methods We extracted data from the medical records of adult patients who were consecutively admitted for suspected COVID-19 infection in Moscow between 8 April and 28 May 2020. Results Of the 4261 patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19, outcomes were available for 3480 patients (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 45–66). The most common comorbidities were hypertension, obesity, chronic cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Half of the patients (n = 1728) had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), while 1748 had a negative RT-PCR but had clinical symptoms and characteristic computed tomography signs suggestive of COVID-19. No significant differences in frequency of symptoms, laboratory test results, and risk factors for in-hospital mortality were found between those exclusively clinically diagnosed or with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR. In a multivariable logistic regression model the following were associated with in-hospital mortality: older age (per 1-year increase; odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.06), male sex (1.71; 1.24–2.37), chronic kidney disease (2.99; 1.89–4.64), diabetes (2.1; 1.46–2.99), chronic cardiovascular disease (1.78; 1.24–2.57), and dementia (2.73; 1.34–5.47). Conclusions Age, male sex, and chronic comorbidities were risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The combination of clinical features was sufficient to diagnose COVID-19 infection, indicating that laboratory testing is not critical in real-life clinical practice