Background: In December 2021, Omicron replaced Delta as the dominant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variant in Thailand. Both variants embody diverse epidemiological trends and immunogenicity. We investigated whether Delta and Omicron patients’ biological and clinical characteristics and immunogenicity differed post-COVID-19 infection. Methods: This retrospective cohort study investigated the clinical outcomes and laboratory data of 5181 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Delta, 2704; Omicron, 2477) under home isolation. We evaluated anti-receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-RBD IgG) and surrogate viral neutralizing (sVNT) activity in 495 individuals post-COVID-19 infection during the Delta pandemic. Results: Approximately 84% of all patients received favipiravir. The median cycle threshold (Ct) values were lower for Omicron patients than Delta patients (19 vs. 21; p < 0.001), regardless of vaccination status. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were more frequent with Omicron patients than Delta patients. There were no significant associations between Ct and Omicron symptoms (95% confidence interval 0.98–1.02). A two-dose vaccine regimen reduced hospital readmission by 10% to 30% and death by under 1%. Anti-RBD IgG and sVNT against Delta were higher among older individuals post-COVID-19 infection. Older individuals expressed anti-RBD IgG and sVNT for a more extended period after two-dose vaccination than other age groups. Conclusions: After a full vaccination course, breakthrough mild-to-moderate Delta and Omicron infections have limited immunogenicity. Prior infections exert reduced protection against later reinfection or infection from novel variants. However, this protection may be sufficient to prevent hospitalization and death, particularly in countries where vaccine supplies are limited.
Background Ruxolitinib is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is used for treatment of myeloproliferative diseases. It exhibits potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects, and may increase the risk of opportunistic infections. Here, we report a rare case of Cryptococcus neoformans and Mycobacterium haemophilum coinfection in a myelofibrosis patient who was receiving ruxolitinib. Case presentation A 70-year-old Thai man who was diagnosed with JAK2V617F-mutation-positive primary myelofibrosis had been treated with ruxolitinib for 4 years. He presented with cellulitis at his left leg for 1 week. Physical examination revealed fever, dyspnea, desaturation, and sign of inflammation on the left leg and ulcers on the right foot. Blood cultures showed positive for C. neoformans. He was prescribed intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate with a subsequent switch to liposomal amphotericin B due to the development of acute kidney injury. He developed new onset of fever after 1 month of antifungal treatment, and the lesion on his left leg had worsened. Biopsy of that skin lesion was sent for mycobacterial culture, and the result showed M. haemophilum. He was treated with levofloxacin, ethambutol, and rifampicin; however, the patient eventually developed septic shock and expired. Conclusions This is the first case of C. neoformans and M. haemophilum coinfection in a patient receiving ruxolitinib treatment. Although uncommon, clinicians should be aware of the potential for multiple opportunistic infections that may be caused by atypical pathogens in patients receiving ruxolitinib.
Introduction: The incidences of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy (DR) in Thai high-risk individuals with prediabetes have not been identified. This study compared diabetes and DR incidences among people at risk with different glycemic levels, using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c).Materials and methods: A historical cohort study estimating risk of type 2 diabetes and DR was conducted among outpatients, using FPG and HbA1c measurements at recruitment and monitored for ≥5 years. High-risk participants (defined as having metabolic syndrome or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) were categorized by glycemic level into 4 groups: 1) impaired fasting glucose (IFG)-/HbA1c- (FPG <110 mg/dl; HbA1c < 6.0%); 2) IFG+/HbA1c- (FPG 110–125 mg/dl; HbA1c < 6.0%); 3) IFG-/HbA1c+ (FPG <110 mg/dl; HbA1c 6.0%–6.4%); and 4) IFG+/HbA1c+ (FPG 110–125 mg/dl; HbA1c 6.0%–6.4%). The incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and DR were obtained and estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cox regression models explored hazard ratios (HRs).Results: We recruited 8,977 people at risk (metabolic syndrome, 89.9%; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, 16.9%). The baseline cohort consisted of 1) IFG-/HbA1c- (n = 4,221; 47.0%); 2) IFG+/HbA1c- (n = 1,274; 14.2%); 3) IFG-/HbA1c+ (n = 2,151; 24.0%); and 4) IFG+/HbA1c+ (n = 1,331; 14.8%). Their 5-year T2DM incidences were 16.0%, 26.4%, 30.8%, and 48.5% (p < 0.001). The median DR follow-up was 7.8 years (interquartile range, 7.0–8.4 years). The DR incidences were 0.50, 0.63, 1.44, and 2.68/1,000 person-years (p < 0.001) for IFG-/HbA1c-, IFG+/HbA1c-, IFG-/HbA1c+, and IFG+/HbA1c+, respectively. Compared with IFG-/HbA1c-, the multivariable-adjusted HRs (95% CI) for incident diabetes were 1.94 (1.34–2.80), 2.45 (1.83–3.29), and 4.56 (3.39–6.15) for IFG+/HbA1c-, IFG-/HbA1c+, and IFG+/HbA1c+, respectively. As for incident DR, the corresponding HRs were 0.67 (0.08–5.76), 4.74 (1.69–13.31), and 5.46 (1.82–16.39), respectively.Conclusion: The 5-year incidence of T2DM in Thai high-risk participants with prediabetes was very high. The incidences of diabetes and DR significantly increased with higher degrees of dysglycemia. High-risk people with FPG 110–125 mg/dl and HbA1c 6.0%–6.4% were more likely to develop T2DM and DR. Such individuals should receive priority lifestyle and pharmacological management.
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.