Showing papers by "University of Colorado Denver published in 2021"
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
••
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, Queen Mary University of London2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León4, Washington University in St. Louis5, University of Pavia6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital8, University of Colorado Denver9, Niigata University10, University of Tübingen11, Bristol-Myers Squibb12, Exelixis13, National Institutes of Health14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15
TL;DR: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
Abstract: Background The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. ...
816 citations
••
Daniel Taliun1, Daniel N. Harris2, Michael D. Kessler2, Jedidiah Carlson3 +202 more•Institutions (61)
TL;DR: The Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) project as discussed by the authors aims to elucidate the genetic architecture and biology of heart, lung, blood and sleep disorders, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these diseases.
Abstract: The Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) programme seeks to elucidate the genetic architecture and biology of heart, lung, blood and sleep disorders, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these diseases The initial phases of the programme focused on whole-genome sequencing of individuals with rich phenotypic data and diverse backgrounds Here we describe the TOPMed goals and design as well as the available resources and early insights obtained from the sequence data The resources include a variant browser, a genotype imputation server, and genomic and phenotypic data that are available through dbGaP (Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes)1 In the first 53,831 TOPMed samples, we detected more than 400 million single-nucleotide and insertion or deletion variants after alignment with the reference genome Additional previously undescribed variants were detected through assembly of unmapped reads and customized analysis in highly variable loci Among the more than 400 million detected variants, 97% have frequencies of less than 1% and 46% are singletons that are present in only one individual (53% among unrelated individuals) These rare variants provide insights into mutational processes and recent human evolutionary history The extensive catalogue of genetic variation in TOPMed studies provides unique opportunities for exploring the contributions of rare and noncoding sequence variants to phenotypic variation Furthermore, combining TOPMed haplotypes with modern imputation methods improves the power and reach of genome-wide association studies to include variants down to a frequency of approximately 001% The goals, resources and design of the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) programme are described, and analyses of rare variants detected in the first 53,831 samples provide insights into mutational processes and recent human evolutionary history
801 citations
••
Baylor College of Medicine1, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai2, Veterans Health Administration3, Primary Children's Hospital4, Royal Free Hospital5, University of Massachusetts Boston6, Rush University Medical Center7, Imperial College London8, University of Colorado Denver9, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust10, University Health Network11, University of Miami12, Genentech13, Hoffmann-La Roche14, University of California, San Diego15
TL;DR: In this paper, a randomized trial involving hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, the use of tocilizumab did not result in significantly better clinical status or lower mortality than placebo at 28 days.
Abstract: Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation, including elevated interleukin-6 levels. The use of tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has resulted in better outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in case reports and retrospective observational cohort studies. Data are needed from randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio receive a single intravenous infusion of tocilizumab (at a dose of 8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. Approximately one quarter of the participants received a second dose of tocilizumab or placebo 8 to 24 hours after the first dose. The primary outcome was clinical status at day 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged or ready for discharge) to 7 (death) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all the patients who had received at least one dose of tocilizumab or placebo. Results Of the 452 patients who underwent randomization, 438 (294 in the tocilizumab group and 144 in the placebo group) were included in the primary and secondary analyses. The median value for clinical status on the ordinal scale at day 28 was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 1.0) in the tocilizumab group and 2.0 (non-ICU hospitalization without supplemental oxygen) (95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.5 to 0; P = 0.31 by the van Elteren test). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 103 of 295 patients (34.9%) in the tocilizumab group and in 55 of 143 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group. Mortality at day 28 was 19.7% in the tocilizumab group and 19.4% in the placebo group (weighted difference, 0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -7.6 to 8.2; nominal P = 0.94). Conclusions In this randomized trial involving hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, the use of tocilizumab did not result in significantly better clinical status or lower mortality than placebo at 28 days. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and the Department of Health and Human Services; COVACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04320615.).
666 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report chronic SARS-CoV-2 with reduced sensitivity to neutralizing antibodies in an immune suppressed individual treated with convalescent plasma, generating whole genome ultradeep sequences over 23 time points spanning 101 days.
Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is critical for virus infection via engagement of ACE21, and is a major antibody target. Here we report chronic SARS-CoV-2 with reduced sensitivity to neutralising antibodies in an immune suppressed individual treated with convalescent plasma, generating whole genome ultradeep sequences over 23 time points spanning 101 days. Little change was observed in the overall viral population structure following two courses of remdesivir over the first 57 days. However, following convalescent plasma therapy we observed large, dynamic virus population shifts, with the emergence of a dominant viral strain bearing D796H in S2 and ΔH69/ΔV70 in the S1 N-terminal domain NTD of the Spike protein. As passively transferred serum antibodies diminished, viruses with the escape genotype diminished in frequency, before returning during a final, unsuccessful course of convalescent plasma. In vitro, the Spike escape double mutant bearing ΔH69/ΔV70 and D796H conferred modestly decreased sensitivity to convalescent plasma, whilst maintaining infectivity similar to wild type. D796H appeared to be the main contributor to decreased susceptibility but incurred an infectivity defect. The ΔH69/ΔV70 single mutant had two-fold higher infectivity compared to wild type, possibly compensating for the reduced infectivity of D796H. These data reveal strong selection on SARS-CoV-2 during convalescent plasma therapy associated with emergence of viral variants with evidence of reduced susceptibility to neutralising antibodies.
651 citations
••
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, University of Colorado Denver12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
628 citations
••
United States Public Health Service1, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2, Harvard University3, New York University4, University of Colorado Denver5, University of Texas at Dallas6, Nationwide Children's Hospital7, Johns Hopkins University8, Yale University9, Westchester Medical Center10, Rutgers University11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, Children's Mercy Hospital13, University of Miami14, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill15, Baylor College of Medicine16, University of Mississippi17, Vanderbilt University18, SUNY Downstate Medical Center19, California State University, Long Beach20, University of Minnesota21, Saint Barnabas Medical Center22, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences23, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute24, Boston Children's Hospital25, University of Washington26, Central Michigan University27, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai28, University of Iowa29, Indiana University30, Emory University31, Medical University of South Carolina32, University of Pennsylvania33, Northwestern University34
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 66 US hospitals in 31 states.
Abstract: Importance Refinement of criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may inform efforts to improve health outcomes. Objective To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Setting, Design, and Participants Case series of 1116 patients aged younger than 21 years hospitalized between March 15 and October 31, 2020, at 66 US hospitals in 31 states. Final date of follow-up was January 5, 2021. Patients with MIS-C had fever, inflammation, multisystem involvement, and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antibody test results or recent exposure with no alternate diagnosis. Patients with COVID-19 had positive RT-PCR test results and severe organ system involvement. Exposure SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures Presenting symptoms, organ system complications, laboratory biomarkers, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Multivariable regression was used to compute adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of factors associated with MIS-C vs COVID-19. Results Of 1116 patients (median age, 9.7 years; 45% female), 539 (48%) were diagnosed with MIS-C and 577 (52%) with COVID-19. Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to be 6 to 12 years old (40.8% vs 19.4%; absolute risk difference [RD], 21.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-26.7%]; aRR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] vs 0-5 years) and non-Hispanic Black (32.3% vs 21.5%; RD, 10.8% [95% CI, 5.6%-16.0%]; aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.17-1.76] vs White). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to have cardiorespiratory involvement (56.0% vs 8.8%; RD, 47.2% [95% CI, 42.4%-52.0%]; aRR, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.55-3.50] vs respiratory involvement), cardiovascular without respiratory involvement (10.6% vs 2.9%; RD, 7.7% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.6%]; aRR, 2.49 [95% CI, 2.05-3.02] vs respiratory involvement), and mucocutaneous without cardiorespiratory involvement (7.1% vs 2.3%; RD, 4.8% [95% CI, 2.3%-7.3%]; aRR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.84-2.85] vs respiratory involvement). Patients with MIS-C had higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (median, 6.4 vs 2.7,P Conclusions and Relevance This case series of patients with MIS-C and with COVID-19 identified patterns of clinical presentation and organ system involvement. These patterns may help differentiate between MIS-C and COVID-19.
493 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink for COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after either vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 2 or 3.
Abstract: Importance Safety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy. Objectives To monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants This study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021. Exposures Receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2. Main Outcomes and Measures Incidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sidedP Results A total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273. Conclusions and Relevance In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.
348 citations
••
Vanderbilt University Medical Center1, Texas A&M University2, University of Colorado Denver3, University of Iowa4, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center5, Wake Forest University6, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine7, Hennepin County Medical Center8, Ohio State University9, Albert Einstein College of Medicine10, University of Washington11, Baystate Medical Center12, Intermountain Medical Center13, University of Michigan14, Oregon Health & Science University15, Emory University16, Emory Healthcare17, Cleveland Clinic18, Stanford University19, University of California, Los Angeles20, University of Miami21, Washington University in St. Louis22
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and hospitalization, and the association with progression to critical disease, using multivariable logistic regression.
Abstract: Importance A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)—and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P Conclusions and Relevance Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.
341 citations
••
Baylor College of Medicine1, Brigham and Women's Hospital2, University of Miami3, University of Pittsburgh4, Emory University5, University of Colorado Denver6, University of California, Los Angeles7, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center8, University of Cincinnati9, Henry Ford Health System10, University of Maryland, College Park11
TL;DR: The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-... as discussed by the authors ) in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Abstract: Background At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-...
310 citations
••
University of California, San Diego1, Northwestern University2, University of Zurich3, University of Amsterdam4, Washington University in St. Louis5, Claude Bernard University Lyon 16, University of Colorado Denver7, United States Department of Veterans Affairs8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, University of Padua10, Queen Mary University of London11, Vanderbilt University12, University of Bordeaux13, Ege University14, University of Michigan15, Universidad del Desarrollo16, Flinders University17, University of Pisa18, University of Chile19, Case Western Reserve University20, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences21, Chulalongkorn University22, University of Melbourne23, University of Ulsan24, Cornell University25, Mayo Clinic26, New York University27, Monash University28, University of Alberta29, University of Bern30, Kosin University31, University of Milan32, University of South Florida33, Autonomous University of Barcelona34, University College Hospital35, University of Washington36, National University of Singapore37, The Chinese University of Hong Kong38, Sun Yat-sen University39
TL;DR: The Chicago Classification v4.4.0 as discussed by the authors is the most recent version of the Chicago Classification, which uses high-resolution manometry (HRM) for motility disorders.
Abstract: Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.
••
Vanderbilt University1, Scott & White Hospital2, Texas A&M University3, University of Colorado Denver4, University of Iowa5, Wake Forest University6, Johns Hopkins University7, Hennepin County Medical Center8, Yeshiva University9, University of Washington10, Tufts University11, University of Utah12, University of Michigan13, Oregon Health & Science University14, Emory University15, Cleveland Clinic16, Stanford University17, University of California, Los Angeles18, University of Miami19, Washington University in St. Louis20, Ohio State University21
TL;DR: In this paper, a case-control analysis was conducted among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021.
Abstract: Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p<0.001). Protection for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine declined 4 months after vaccination. Postvaccination anti-spike IgG and anti-RBD IgG levels were significantly lower in persons vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine than the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Although these real-world data suggest some variation in levels of protection by vaccine, all FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization.
••
University of Utah1, University of Colorado Denver2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Harvard University4, University of California, San Diego5, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston6, Medical College of Wisconsin7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Northwestern University9, Emory University10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of São Paulo12, Sun Yat-sen University13, Ghent University14, Karolinska Institutet15, University of Chicago16, Rush University Medical Center17, University of Barcelona18, University of California, Los Angeles19, Vanderbilt University20, University of Arizona21, University of Kansas22, Université de Montréal23, University of Auckland24, Rutgers University25, University of Amsterdam26, Columbia University27, Eastern Virginia Medical School28, University of New South Wales29, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven30, Guy's Hospital31, Stanford University32, University of British Columbia33, Mayo Clinic34, Johns Hopkins University35, Korea University36, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences37, Jikei University School of Medicine38, University of Washington39, University of Siena40, University of East Anglia41, University of Adelaide42, Pusan National University43, University of Calgary44, University of Cincinnati45, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill46, Cleveland Clinic47, University of Winnipeg48, Chulalongkorn University49, Cornell University50, National University of Singapore51, University of Alabama at Birmingham52, University of Alberta53, Capital Medical University54
TL;DR: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in the understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease.
Abstract: I. Executive summary BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. Methods ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
••
Oregon Health & Science University1, Oregon State University2, Johns Hopkins University3, University of Colorado Denver4, University of Iowa5, Sage Bionetworks6, Duke University7, Washington University in St. Louis8, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill9, Stony Brook University10, University of Texas Medical Branch11, University of Washington12, Tufts Medical Center13, Scripps Research Institute14, Janssen Pharmaceutica15, University of Alabama at Birmingham16, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine17, National Institutes of Health18, Columbia University19, Harvard University20, Durham University21, Tufts University22, University of Pittsburgh23, Palantir Technologies24
TL;DR: The N3C has demonstrated that a multisite collaborative learning health network can overcome barriers to rapidly build a scalable infrastructure incorporating multiorganizational clinical data for COVID-19 analytics.
••
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University1, Hofstra University2, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research3, Lenox Hill Hospital4, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center5, York Hospital6, NorthShore University HealthSystem7, University of Chicago8, Medical College of Wisconsin9, University of Colorado Denver10, Cardiovascular Institute of the South11, McMaster University12
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Abstract: Importance Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, setting, and participants The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main outcomes and measures The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P Conclusions and relevance In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.
••
Queen Mary University of London1, Harvard University2, University of Auckland3, St. Michael's Hospital4, Winthrop-University Hospital5, Karolinska Institutet6, University of Zurich7, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile8, University of Copenhagen9, Boston Children's Hospital10, University of Parma11, University of London12, University of Colorado Denver13, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev14, McMaster University15, Case Western Reserve University16, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven17, University of Tampere18, Columbia University Medical Center19, Medical University of Łódź20, Pennsylvania State University21, University of Birmingham22, University of Otago23, Jikei University School of Medicine24, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute25, Dartmouth College26, University of Helsinki27, University College of Medical Sciences28, Menzies Research Institute29, University of Melbourne30, University of Delhi31
TL;DR: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention as discussed by the authors.
••
Harvard University1, Johns Hopkins University2, University of Texas at Dallas3, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill4, Westchester Medical Center5, New York University6, University of Mississippi7, University of Miami8, University of Colorado Denver9, Boston Children's Hospital10, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis11, University of Washington12, University of Pennsylvania13, Saint Barnabas Medical Center14, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston15, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences16, Mayo Clinic17, University of Cincinnati18, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention19, Vanderbilt University20, Yale University21, Nationwide Children's Hospital22, University of Alabama at Birmingham23, Children's Mercy Hospital24, SUNY Downstate Medical Center25, Baylor College of Medicine26, Emory University27, California State University, Long Beach28, Rutgers University29, University of California, San Francisco30, Washington University in St. Louis31, University of Minnesota32, University of Iowa33, Medical University of South Carolina34, Northwestern University35, University of Michigan36
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the range and severity of neurologic involvement among children and adolescents associated with COVID-19 and found that patients with involvement were more likely to have underlying neurologic disorders (81 of 365 [22] compared with those without (113 of 1330 [8%]), but a similar number were previously healthy (195 [53%] vs 723 [54%]) and met criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (126 [35%] vs 490 [37%]).
Abstract: Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects the nervous system in adult patients. The spectrum of neurologic involvement in children and adolescents is unclear. Objective To understand the range and severity of neurologic involvement among children and adolescents associated with COVID-19. Setting, Design, and Participants Case series of patients (age Exposures Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Main Outcomes and Measures Type and severity of neurologic involvement, laboratory and imaging data, and outcomes (death or survival with new neurologic deficits) at hospital discharge. Results Of 1695 patients (909 [54%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 9.1 [2.4-15.3] years), 365 (22%) from 52 sites had documented neurologic involvement. Patients with neurologic involvement were more likely to have underlying neurologic disorders (81 of 365 [22%]) compared with those without (113 of 1330 [8%]), but a similar number were previously healthy (195 [53%] vs 723 [54%]) and met criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (126 [35%] vs 490 [37%]). Among those with neurologic involvement, 322 (88%) had transient symptoms and survived, and 43 (12%) developed life-threatening conditions clinically adjudicated to be associated with COVID-19, including severe encephalopathy (n = 15; 5 with splenial lesions), stroke (n = 12), central nervous system infection/demyelination (n = 8), Guillain-Barre syndrome/variants (n = 4), and acute fulminant cerebral edema (n = 4). Compared with those without life-threatening conditions (n = 322), those with life-threatening neurologic conditions had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (median, 12.2 vs 4.4) and higher reported frequency of D-dimer greater than 3 μg/mL fibrinogen equivalent units (21 [49%] vs 72 [22%]). Of 43 patients who developed COVID-19–related life-threatening neurologic involvement, 17 survivors (40%) had new neurologic deficits at hospital discharge, and 11 patients (26%) died. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, many children and adolescents hospitalized for COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children had neurologic involvement, mostly transient symptoms. A range of life-threatening and fatal neurologic conditions associated with COVID-19 infrequently occurred. Effects on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.
••
••
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1, Vanderbilt University2, Tufts University3, Harvard University4, University of Colorado Denver5, Hennepin County Medical Center6, University of Utah7, Yeshiva University8, Oregon Health & Science University9, Ohio State University10, Wake Forest University11, Johns Hopkins University12, University of California, Los Angeles13, Stanford University14, Scott & White Hospital15, University of Michigan16, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System17, University of Pittsburgh18
TL;DR: In this paper, the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥ 65 years.
Abstract: Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.
••
TL;DR: A review of interleukin-related mechanisms in cancer, together with their application in clinical practice is provided in this paper, which includes an overview of current clinical trials and breakthrough preclinical concepts.
Abstract: Interleukins and associated cytokines serve as the means of communication for innate and adaptive immune cells as well as non-immune cells and tissues. Thus, interleukins have a critical role in cancer development, progression and control. Interleukins can nurture an environment enabling and favouring cancer growth while simultaneously being essential for a productive tumour-directed immune response. These properties of interleukins can be exploited to improve immunotherapies to promote effectiveness as well as to limit side effects. This Review aims to unravel some of these complex interactions. This Review provides an update of interleukins in tumour biology, covering the milestones of the latest discoveries of interleukin-related mechanisms in cancer, together with their application in clinical practice. It includes an overview of current clinical trials and breakthrough preclinical concepts.
••
Boston Children's Hospital1, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2, Johns Hopkins University3, Baylor College of Medicine4, Children's Medical Center of Dallas5, New York Medical College6, Central Michigan University7, University of Pennsylvania8, University of Alabama at Birmingham9, Yale University10, University of Minnesota11, University of Mississippi Medical Center12, Children's Mercy Hospital13, Rutgers University14, Nationwide Children's Hospital15, University of Washington16, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill17, Arkansas Children's Hospital18, Louisiana State University19, University of Colorado Denver20
TL;DR: In this article, the assessment of real-world effectiveness of immunomodulatory medications for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may guide therapy, and the authors analyzed surve...
Abstract: Background The assessment of real-world effectiveness of immunomodulatory medications for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may guide therapy. Methods We analyzed surve...
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a large-scale dataset of tens of thousands of units in six cortical and two thalamic regions in the brains of mice responding to a battery of visual stimuli is presented.
Abstract: The anatomy of the mammalian visual system, from the retina to the neocortex, is organized hierarchically1. However, direct observation of cellular-level functional interactions across this hierarchy is lacking due to the challenge of simultaneously recording activity across numerous regions. Here we describe a large, open dataset-part of the Allen Brain Observatory2-that surveys spiking from tens of thousands of units in six cortical and two thalamic regions in the brains of mice responding to a battery of visual stimuli. Using cross-correlation analysis, we reveal that the organization of inter-area functional connectivity during visual stimulation mirrors the anatomical hierarchy from the Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Atlas3. We find that four classical hierarchical measures-response latency, receptive-field size, phase-locking to drifting gratings and response decay timescale-are all correlated with the hierarchy. Moreover, recordings obtained during a visual task reveal that the correlation between neural activity and behavioural choice also increases along the hierarchy. Our study provides a foundation for understanding coding and signal propagation across hierarchically organized cortical and thalamic visual areas.
••
TL;DR: Extremes of age, comorbid conditions, and elevated CRP are predictors of severe disease in children.
Abstract: Background There are limited pediatric data regarding severe COVID-19 disease. Our study aims to describe the epidemiology and identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease in children. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study among children with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR from March to July 2020 at Children's Hospital Colorado. Risk factors for severe disease were analyzed as defined by hospital admission, respiratory support, or critical care. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted. Results Among 454 patients identified with SARS-CoV-2, 191 (42.1%) were females, median age 11 years. Fifty-five percent of all patients identified as Hispanic compared with 29% among all hospital visits in 2019 (P 20 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 7.85; P 20 years, asthma, gastrointestinal condition, and similar symptoms at presentation were also predictors for respiratory support. Elevated C-reactive protein was associated with the need for critical care with median of 17.7 mg/dL (IQR, 5.3-22.9) versus 1.95 mg/dL (IQR, 0.7-5.5) among patients requiring critical versus no critical care (OR, 1.2; P = 0.02). Conclusions Extremes of age, comorbid conditions, and elevated CRP are predictors of severe disease in children. Findings from this study can inform pediatric providers and public health officials to tailor clinical management, pandemic planning, and resource allocation.
••
TL;DR: Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared with HA, and leukocytes-poor PRP may be a superior line of treatment over leukocyte-rich PRP, although further studies are needed.
Abstract: Background:Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are 2 nonoperative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis (OA) that are supposed to provide symptomatic relief and help delay surgi...
••
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center1, Stanford University2, University of Cincinnati3, Vanderbilt University Medical Center4, Vanderbilt University5, Harvard University6, Broad Institute7, University of Lausanne8, University of Hawaii9, University of Colorado Denver10, Thomas Jefferson University11, Mayo Clinic12, Loyola University Medical Center13, Houston Methodist Hospital14, Emory University15, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center16, University of Florida17, McGill University Health Centre18, University of California, San Diego19, Case Western Reserve University20, St. Elizabeth Healthcare21, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai22, University of Kentucky23, Brown University24, Tufts Medical Center25, University of Michigan26, Henry Ford Health System27, Intermountain Healthcare28, George Washington University29, Cleveland Clinic30, Duke University31, Montefiore Medical Center32, Columbia University33, University of Connecticut34, Mount Auburn Hospital35, University of Kansas36, University of California, San Francisco37, Baylor College of Medicine38, Cancer Treatment Centers of America39, Ohio State University40, Penn State Cancer Institute41, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio42, Loma Linda University43, University of California, Davis44, Medical University of South Carolina45, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill46, Rutgers University47, Washington University in St. Louis48, LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans49, University of Miami50
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.
••
Vanderbilt University1, University of Colorado Denver2, University of Iowa3, Scott & White Hospital4, Texas A&M University5, Harvard University6, Wake Forest University7, Johns Hopkins University8, Hennepin County Medical Center9, Yeshiva University10, University of Washington11, Tufts University12, University of Utah13, University of Michigan14, Oregon Health & Science University15, Emory University16, Cleveland Clinic17, Stanford University18, University of California, Los Angeles19, University of Miami20, Washington University in St. Louis21, Ohio State University22
TL;DR: In this article, Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in 21 hospitals in 18 states and the duration of mRNA vaccine effectiveness against COVID19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years.
Abstract: Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range = 14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI = 87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI = 82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI = 77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
••
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia1, Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children2, Seattle Children's Research Institute3, Nationwide Children's Hospital4, Washington University in St. Louis5, St. Louis Children's Hospital6, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center7, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center8, University of Colorado Denver9, Boston Children's Hospital10
TL;DR: In univariate analyses, nonmalignant chronic disease was associated with lower likelihood of testing, and preexisting respiratory conditions were associated withLower risk of positive test results, however, several other diagnosis groups wereassociated with a higher risk ofpositive test results.
Abstract: Importance There is limited information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and infection among pediatric patients across the United States. Objective To describe testing for SARS-CoV-2 and the epidemiology of infected patients. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health record data from 135 794 patients younger than 25 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from January 1 through September 8, 2020. Data were from PEDSnet, a network of 7 US pediatric health systems, comprising 6.5 million patients primarily from 11 states. Data analysis was performed from September 8 to 24, 2020. Exposure Testing for SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. Results A total of 135 794 pediatric patients (53% male; mean [SD] age, 8.8 [6.7] years; 3% Asian patients, 15% Black patients, 11% Hispanic patients, and 59% White patients; 290 per 10 000 population [range, 155-395 per 10 000 population across health systems]) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 5374 (4%) were infected with the virus (12 per 10 000 population [range, 7-16 per 10 000 population]). Compared with White patients, those of Black, Hispanic, and Asian race/ethnicity had lower rates of testing (Black: odds ratio [OR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.68-0.72]; Hispanic: OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.63-0.67]; Asian: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.57-0.63]); however, they were significantly more likely to have positive test results (Black: OR, 2.66 [95% CI, 2.43-2.90]; Hispanic: OR, 3.75 [95% CI, 3.39-4.15]; Asian: OR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.69-2.48]). Older age (5-11 years: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.13-1.38]; 12-17 years: OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.73-2.12]; 18-24 years: OR, 3.51 [95% CI, 3.11-3.97]), public payer (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.31-1.57]), outpatient testing (OR, 2.13 [1.86-2.44]), and emergency department testing (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 2.72-3.67]) were also associated with increased risk of infection. In univariate analyses, nonmalignant chronic disease was associated with lower likelihood of testing, and preexisting respiratory conditions were associated with lower risk of positive test results (standardized ratio [SR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.84]). However, several other diagnosis groups were associated with a higher risk of positive test results: malignant disorders (SR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.19-1.93]), cardiac disorders (SR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05-1.32]), endocrinologic disorders (SR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.31-1.75]), gastrointestinal disorders (SR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.04-1.38]), genetic disorders (SR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40]), hematologic disorders (SR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.47]), musculoskeletal disorders (SR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.30]), mental health disorders (SR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.30]), and metabolic disorders (SR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.24-1.61]). Among the 5374 patients with positive test results, 359 (7%) were hospitalized for respiratory, hypotensive, or COVID-19–specific illness. Of these, 99 (28%) required intensive care unit services, and 33 (9%) required mechanical ventilation. The case fatality rate was 0.2% (8 of 5374). The number of patients with a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease in early 2020 was 40% lower (259 vs 433 and 430) than in 2018 or 2019. Conclusions and Relevance In this large cohort study of US pediatric patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were low, and clinical manifestations were typically mild. Black, Hispanic, and Asian race/ethnicity; adolescence and young adulthood; and nonrespiratory chronic medical conditions were associated with identified infection. Kawasaki disease diagnosis is not an effective proxy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.
••
Harvard University1, European Institute of Oncology2, Seoul National University Hospital3, University of Ulsan4, Université Paris-Saclay5, University of Washington6, University of Colorado Denver7, University of Miami8, Hebron University9, Yonsei University10, University of Michigan11, University Hospital Heidelberg12, Georgetown University13, Mayo Clinic14, University of California, Irvine15, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center16
TL;DR: The ARROW study as discussed by the authors evaluated the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.
Abstract: Summary Background Oncogenic alterations in RET have been identified in multiple tumour types, including 1–2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Methods ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study done at 71 sites (community and academic cancer centres) in 13 countries (Belgium, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 (later limited to 0–1 in a protocol amendment) were enrolled. In phase 2, patients received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib, and could continue treatment until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Phase 2 primary endpoints were overall response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1·1 and assessed by blinded independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease who had received platinum-based chemotherapy or were treatment-naive because they were ineligible for standard therapy. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03037385, and enrolment of patients with treatment-naive RET fusion-positive NSCLC was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Findings Of 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC enrolled between March 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020 (data cutoff), 92 with previous platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 who were treatment-naive received pralsetinib before July 11, 2019 (efficacy enrolment cutoff); 87 previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naive patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease. Overall responses were recorded in 53 (61%; 95% CI 50–71) of 87 patients with previous platinum-based chemotherapy, including five (6%) patients with a complete response; and 19 (70%; 50–86) of 27 treatment-naive patients, including three (11%) with a complete response. In 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (43 patients [18%]), hypertension (26 [11%]), and anaemia (24 [10%]); there were no treatment-related deaths in this population. Interpretation Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, promising, once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Funding Blueprint Medicines.
••
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University1, University of Hertfordshire2, University College Cork3, University of Pisa4, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg5, Leipzig University6, Russian National Research Medical University7, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation8, University of Oxford9, University of Glasgow10, University of Colorado Denver11, Imperial College Healthcare12, Imperial College London13, University of Edinburgh14, Coventry University15, University of Surrey16, University of Liverpool17, National Institutes of Health18
TL;DR: In this paper, a prospective cohort study of children (≤18 years old) admitted with confirmed Covid-19 and associated risk factors was carried out to assess long-term outcomes.
Abstract: Background: The long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in children remain poorly characterised. This study aimed to assess long-term outcomes in children previously hospitalised with Covid-19 and associated risk factors.
Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of children (≤18 years old) admitted with confirmed Covid-19. Children admitted to the hospital between April 2, 2020 and August 26, 2020, were included. Telephone interview using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Covid-19 Health and Wellbeing paediatric follow-up survey. Persistent symptoms (>5 months) were further categorised by system(s) involved.
Findings: 518 of 853 (61%) of eligible children were available for the follow-up assessment and included in the study. Median age was 10.4 years (IQR, 3–15.2) and 270 (52.1%) were girls; median follow-up since hospital discharge was 256 (223–271) days. At the time of the follow-up interview 126 (24.3%) participants reported persistent symptoms among which fatigue (53, 10.7%), sleep disturbance (36, 6.9%,) and sensory problems (29, 5.6%) were the most common. Multiple symptoms were experienced by 44 (8.4%) participants. Risk factors for persistent symptoms were: older age “6–11 years” (odds ratio 2.74 (95% confidence interval 1.37 to 5.75) and “12–18 years” (2.68, 1.41 to 5.4); and a history of allergic diseases (1.67, 1.04 to 2.67).
Interpretation: A quarter of children experienced persistent symptoms months after hospitalization with acute covid-19 infection, with almost one in ten experiencing multi-system involvement. Older age and allergic diseases were associated with higher risk of persistent symptoms at follow-up.
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explored the impact of SIPO adoption on health, with particular attention to heterogeneity in their impacts, using daily state-level social distancing data from SafeGraph and a difference-in-differences approach.
Abstract: Shelter in place orders (SIPOs) require residents to remain home for all but essential activities. Between March 19 and April 20, 2020, 40 states and the District of Columbia adopted SIPOs. This study explores the impact of SIPOs on health, with particular attention to heterogeneity in their impacts. First, using daily state-level social distancing data from SafeGraph and a difference-in-differences approach, we document that adoption of a SIPO was associated with a 9 to 10 percent increase in the rate at which state residents remained in their homes full-time. Then, using daily state-level coronavirus case data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we find that approximately three weeks following the adoption of a SIPO, cumulative COVID-19 cases fell by approximately 53.5 percent. Event-study analyses confirm common COVID-19 case trends in the week prior to SIPO adoption and show that SIPO-induced case reductions grew larger over time. However, this average effect masks important heterogeneity across states - early adopters and high population density states appear to reap larger benefits from their SIPOs. Finally, we find that statewide SIPOs were associated with a reduction in coronavirus-related deaths, but estimated mortality effects were imprecisely estimated.