Effect of the inclusion of Bacillus spp. in growing–finishing pigs’ diets: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis determined the effect of Bacillus spp. on growth performance of growing–finishing pigs and then assessed causes for the heterogeneity of responses detected using meta-regression. A database of 22 articles published from 2000 to 2020 was identified, and 9 articles fitted the selection criteria and were integrated in the final database. Statistical analysis was performed to analyze the effect size for ADG, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and F:G ratio using a standardized means difference (SMD) at a 95% confidence interval. A meta-regression analysis was used to investigate the cause of heterogeneity, using the individual SMD for each study assessment as the outcome and the associated SE as the measure of variance. Dietary Bacillus spp. supplementation had no effect on ADFI (SMD: −0.052, p = 0.138) and numerically increased ADG (SMD: 0.113, p = 0.081) and reduced the F:G ratio SMD: −0.127, p < 0.001). Meta-regression outcomes suggested that the number of animals per group was an essential component promoting heterogeneity in ADG. Overall, the inclusion of Bacillus spp. (median 486 mg/d) in growing–finishing pigs can increase ADG and can decrease the F:G ratio

Neuroblastoma in Spain : Linking the national clinical database and epidemiological registries - A study by the Joint Action on Rare Cancers

Altres ajuts: Ministerio de Sanidad; Universitat de València; Sociedad Española de Oncología Pediátrica; Fundación de Oncología Infantil Enriqueta Villavecchia.Purpose: Linkage between clinical databases and population-based cancer registries may serve to evaluate European Reference Networks' (ERNs) activity, by monitoring the proportion of patients benefiting from these and their impact on survival at a population level. To test this, a study targeting neuroblastoma (Nb) was conducted in Spain by the European Joint Action on Rare Cancers. Material and methods: Subjects: Nb cases, incident 1999-2017, aged < 15 years. Linkage included: Spanish Neuroblastoma Clinical Database (NbCDB) (1217 cases); Spanish Registry of Childhood Tumours (RETI) (1514 cases); and 10 regional population-based registries (RPBCRs) which cover 33% of the childhood population (332 cases). Linkage was semiautomatic. We estimated completeness, incidence, contribution, deficit, and 5-year survival in the databases and specific subsets. Results: National completeness estimates for RETI and NbCDB were 91% and 72% respectively, using the Spanish RPBCRs on International Incidence of Childhood Cancer (https://iicc.iarc.fr/) as reference. RPBCRs' specific contribution was 1.6%. Linkage required manual crossover in 54% of the semiautomatic matches. Five-year survival was 74% (0-14 years) and 90% (0-18 months). Conclusions: All three databases were incomplete as regards Spain as a whole and should therefore be combined to achieve full childhood cancer registration. A unique personal patient identifier could facilitate such linkage. Most children have access to Nb clinical trials. Consolidated interconnections between the national registry and clinical registries (including ERNs and paediatric oncology clinical groups) should be established to evaluate outcomes

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health