Differential cellular and humoral immune responses in immunocompromised individuals following multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations

Introduction: The heterogeneity of the immunocompromised population means some individuals may exhibit variable, weak or reduced vaccine-induced immune responses, leaving them poorly protected from COVID-19 disease despite receiving multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. There is conflicting data on the immunogenicity elicited by multiple vaccinations in immunocompromised groups. The aim of this study was to measure both humoral and cellular vaccine-induced immunity in several immunocompromised cohorts and to compare them to immunocompetent controls. Methods: Cytokine release in peptide-stimulated whole blood, and neutralising antibody and baseline SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG levels in plasma were measured in rheumatology patients (n=29), renal transplant recipients (n=46), people living with HIV (PLWH) (n=27) and immunocompetent participants (n=64) post third or fourth vaccination from just one blood sample. Cytokines were measured by ELISA and multiplex array. Neutralising antibody levels in plasma were determined by a 50% neutralising antibody titre assay and SARS-CoV-2 spike specific IgG levels were quantified by ELISA. Results: In infection negative donors, IFN-γ, IL-2 and neutralising antibody levels were significantly reduced in rheumatology patients (p=0.0014, p=0.0415, p=0.0319, respectively) and renal transplant recipients (p<0.0001, p=0.0005, p<0.0001, respectively) compared to immunocompetent controls, with IgG antibody responses similarly affected. Conversely, cellular and humoral immune responses were not impaired in PLWH, or between individuals from all groups with previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Discussion: These results suggest that specific subgroups within immunocompromised cohorts could benefit from distinct, personalised immunisation or treatment strategies. Identification of vaccine non-responders could be critical to protect those most at risk

Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved

Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity:a UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise

Introduction: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers’ wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. Methods: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance—the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. Results: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties (‘indicative questions’) for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. Discussion: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization