Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...
Background BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. MethodsThe SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46•1 years (IQR 36•0-54•1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infecti...
PA stiffness is independently associated with the degree of RV dysfunction, dilation, and hypertrophy in PH. RV adaptation to chronic pressure overload is related not only to the levels of vascular resistance (steady afterload), but also to PA stiffness (pulsatile load).
Cardiogenic shock remains a challenging disease entity and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be implemented in an acute setting to stabilize acutely ill patients with cardiomyopathy in a variety of clinical situations. Currently, several options exist for temporary MCS. We review the indications, contraindications, clinical applications, and evidences for a variety of temporary circulatory support options, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), CentriMag blood pump, and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), specifically the TandemHeart and Impella.
Background Right ventricular (RV) failure is a source of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We sought to define hemodynamic changes in afterload and RV adaption to afterload both early after implantation and with prolonged LVAD support. Methods We reviewed right heart catheterization (RHC) data from participants who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institutions (n=244), excluding those on inotropic or vasopressor agents, pulmonary vasodilators, or additional mechanical support at any RHC. Hemodynamic data was assessed at five time intervals: 1) pre-LVAD (within 6 months), 2) early post-LVAD (0–6 months), 3) 7–12 months, 4) 13–18 months and 3) very-late post-LVAD (18–36 months). Results Sixty participants met the inclusion criteria. All measures of right ventricular load (effective arterial elastance, pulmonary vascular compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance) improved between the pre- and early post-LVAD time periods. Despite decreasing load and pulmonary capillary artery pressure (PAWP), RAP remained unchanged and the RAP:PAWP ratio worsened early post-LVAD (0.44 [0.38, 0.63] versus 0.77 [0.59, 1.0], p<0.001), suggesting a worsening of RV adaptation to load. With continued LVAD support, both RV load and RAP:PAWP decreased in a steep, linear and dependent manner. Conclusion Despite reducing RV load, LVAD implantation leads to worsened RV adaptation. With continued LVAD support, both RV afterload and RV adaptation improve, and their relationship remains constant over time post-LVAD. These findings suggest the RV afterload sensitivity increases after LVAD implantation, which has important clinical implications for patients struggling with RV failure.
beta/A4 peptides are known to induce neurodegeneration in cultures of rat brain cells and rat neural cell lines (Yankner et al: Science 250:279-282, 1990; Behl et al: Biochem Biophys Res Commun 186:944-950, 1992). The current data show that these peptides induce similar neurodegeneration in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells, extending characterization of beta/A4 toxicity to a human nerve cell line. Human SH-SY5Y cells respond to aggregated beta/A4 with changes in cell shape, membrane blebbing, antigenic modification, loss of attachment to the substrate, and cell death. beta/A4 peptides require aggregation for maximum toxic effects, as cellular degeneration is evoked by aggregated beta/A4 1-42 and 4-41 cysteine but not by monomeric beta/A4 1-40. Aged (pre-aggregated) beta/A4 1-40 also evoked neurodegeneration. Antigenic changes comprise upregulation of Alzheimer's-type tau epitopes, recognized by the PHF-1 and Alz-50 monoclonals. These particular changes in tau support the connectivity between this in vitro model and mechanisms leading to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease. A significant feature of the SH-SY5Y response is that cells must be differentiated before they become sensitive to the degeneration evoked by beta/A4. Signaling pathways leading to beta/A4-evoked neurodegeneration thus are under experimental control, becoming complete only when proliferating cells withdraw from the cell cycle and develop a postmitotic phenotype.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.