Electrical spinal cord stimulation must preserve proprioception to enable locomotion in humans with spinal cord injury

Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the spinal cord restores locomotion in animal models of spinal cord injury but is less effective in humans. Here we hypothesized that this interspecies discrepancy is due to interference between EES and proprioceptive information in humans. Computational simulations and preclinical and clinical experiments reveal that EES blocks a significant amount of proprioceptive input in humans, but not in rats. This transient deafferentation prevents modulation of reciprocal inhibitory networks involved in locomotion and reduces or abolishes the conscious perception of leg position. Consequently, continuous EES can only facilitate locomotion within a narrow range of stimulation parameters and is unable to provide meaningful locomotor improvements in humans without rehabilitation. Simulations showed that burst stimulation and spatiotemporal stimulation profiles mitigate the cancellation of proprioceptive information, enabling robust control over motor neuron activity. This demonstrates the importance of stimulation protocols that preserve proprioceptive information to facilitate walking with EES

Distress and quality of life characteristics associated with seeking surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current research focuses on three variables in evaluating the impact of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) on daily living: severity of incontinence, distress or bother resulting from incontinence, and effect on health related quality of life (HRQoL). Understanding the impact of these variables is important as they are the driving force behind women seeking surgical treatment. Given the importance of HRQoL in determining need for treatment, as well as evaluating treatment success, this review provides an assessment of the degree to which HRQoL is impaired in women seeking surgical treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>PubMed searches for the terms "quality of life and distress and urinary incontinence" and "quality of life and bother and urinary incontinence" were performed with limits of English, human and female subjects through May 2008. All studies using validated instruments were included. No time limit was placed on the search.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 178 articles retrieved, 21 met the inclusion criteria, and 17 reported methods of scoring. The studies used the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ). Wide ranges of mean and individual levels of severity of symptoms, UDI and IIQ scores were seen among women seeking surgical treatment. Fourteen studies reported baseline and post-surgical treatment distress and QoL data. Statistically significant improvements between baseline and post-surgical UDI and IIQ scores were reported in 12 studies. Reported cure rates ranged from 46% to 97%. Satisfaction with the procedure was reported in 4 studies and ranged from 84% to 91%. A minority of studies reported the relationship between reduction in symptoms and change in HRQoL.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HRQoL is the main reason women seek surgical treatment for incontinence and surgical treatment leads to a significant improvement in mean HRQoL scores. Assessment of HRQoL has proved less useful in identifying why individual women seek treatment for incontinence. Preliminary work has begun to characterize the interaction between severity of symptoms, distress or bother resulting from these urinary symptoms, impact on HRQoL, and treatment seeking behavior, but further research is needed. Greater standardization in the reporting of results of distress or bother and HRQoL would allow for comparison across studies.</p

Distress and quality of life characteristics associated with seeking surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current research focuses on three variables in evaluating the impact of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) on daily living: severity of incontinence, distress or bother resulting from incontinence, and effect on health related quality of life (HRQoL). Understanding the impact of these variables is important as they are the driving force behind women seeking surgical treatment. Given the importance of HRQoL in determining need for treatment, as well as evaluating treatment success, this review provides an assessment of the degree to which HRQoL is impaired in women seeking surgical treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>PubMed searches for the terms "quality of life and distress and urinary incontinence" and "quality of life and bother and urinary incontinence" were performed with limits of English, human and female subjects through May 2008. All studies using validated instruments were included. No time limit was placed on the search.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 178 articles retrieved, 21 met the inclusion criteria, and 17 reported methods of scoring. The studies used the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ). Wide ranges of mean and individual levels of severity of symptoms, UDI and IIQ scores were seen among women seeking surgical treatment. Fourteen studies reported baseline and post-surgical treatment distress and QoL data. Statistically significant improvements between baseline and post-surgical UDI and IIQ scores were reported in 12 studies. Reported cure rates ranged from 46% to 97%. Satisfaction with the procedure was reported in 4 studies and ranged from 84% to 91%. A minority of studies reported the relationship between reduction in symptoms and change in HRQoL.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HRQoL is the main reason women seek surgical treatment for incontinence and surgical treatment leads to a significant improvement in mean HRQoL scores. Assessment of HRQoL has proved less useful in identifying why individual women seek treatment for incontinence. Preliminary work has begun to characterize the interaction between severity of symptoms, distress or bother resulting from these urinary symptoms, impact on HRQoL, and treatment seeking behavior, but further research is needed. Greater standardization in the reporting of results of distress or bother and HRQoL would allow for comparison across studies.</p

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines: an exploratory substudy of a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines when co-administered with influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. Methods: A sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomised trial of NVX-CoV2373’s safety and efficacy; ~400 participants meeting main study entry criteria, with no contraindications to influenza vaccination, were enroled. After randomisation to receive NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, sub-study participants received an open-label influenza vaccine at the same time as the first dose of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated for 7 days post-vaccination plus monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was assessed. Findings: Sub-study participants were younger (median age 39; 6.7 % ≥65 years), more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) in those 18-<65 years in the sub-study while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).  Interpretation: This is the first study to demonstrate safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with influenza vaccines

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial (vol 84, pg 795, 2022)

The authors regret that there has been an error published within Fig. 5 of this article. The authors inadvertently pasted the anti-spike plots for the “≥70 years” group instead of the pseudo-neutralising antibody plots (pages 808–809) to Fig. 5A and B. These plots replicate the “≥70 years” group in Fig. 4A and B on pages 806–807. The authors have confirmed that the error does not affect the interpretation of the results and the rest of the paper, and the plots for the “<70 years” group in Fig. 5 are correct. The revised Fig. 5 contains the correct plots for pseudo-neutralising antibody data has now been updated in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused