ABSTRACT
BackgroundA 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed.ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses.Methods50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period.ResultsAt week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781 – 10208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633 - 16050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDue to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Mrak Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Daniela Sieghart: None declared, Elisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp and Pfizer, Peter Mandl: None declared, Lisa Göschl: None declared, Philipp Hofer: None declared, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Irina Gessl: None declared, Renate Kain Speakers bureau: Otsuka, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharma, MEDahead and Janssen Cilag, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helmuth Haslacher Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Leonhard Heinz: None declared, Michael Bonelli Consultant of: EliLilly.
ABSTRACT
SCOPO DEL LAVORO: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a syndrome caused by a new Coronavirus strain, diagnosed for the first time in China and subsequently spread throughout the world. For this reason, on January 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a state of pandemic. In Italy, the first case of COVID-19 was reported on February 2020. Since then, the Italian Government imposed some restrictions, such as social distancing, in some cases confinement, that have contributed to generate a great psychological distress and forced people to seek new strategies to cope to the emergency. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines the perception of risk as an “individual's subjective assessment of the level of risk associated with a particular hazard”. The risk perception has a strong impact on changing people's choices in the face of events and it can be divided into a rational part and a heuristic part guided by emotions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of risk in three groups of psychiatric patients (depressed, bipolar and schizophrenic) in order to address which categories of patients were most vulnerable during an emergency situation and to evaluate future choices on public health and emergency planning. MATERIALI E METODI: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on an outpatient setting between January 2021 and February 2021, which was during of Phase 2 of the Italian COVID-19 lockdown. Patients were previously tested to check the clinical stability through Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI), Quality of Life Index (QLF), Insight Scale (IS) and Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenic patients, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS) for depressed patients and MADRS plus Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) for bipolar patients. In addition, we used a questionnaire proposed by Lanciano et al., (2020) composed by 10 items to assess the perception of risk, risk-related variables and emotional states during COVID-19 emergency. RISULTATI: There were no statistical differences among the three groups of patients, thus the suggesting an homogeneity of the sample. Results showed that patients were more concerned about economic, psychologic and interpersonal consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, than about their own health. Positive and anxiety related emotions were the most frequent. In the multiple regression analysis, the likelihood of COVID resolution was positively correlated with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, the increased perceived effectiveness, and the presence of positive emotions. The perception of knowledge of the COVID phenomenon positively influenced both the institutional-economy risk and the psychological risk. Finally, positive emotions and uncertainty positively influenced the interpersonal risk. CONCLUSIONI: Our study highlight the need to give more attention to support psychiatric patients during emergency situations to reduce the perceived isolation. to prevent them from engaging in risky behavior.
ABSTRACT
In recent years, bitcoin has been at the center of a debate: is it a financial asset or not? If it is an asset, what kind of asset is it? Is it a tradable, speculative asset, or is it a long-term investment? The debate has largely unfolded around the real nature of Bitcoin and its correlation with other asset classes. Some scholars have discussed the correlation coefficient of bitcoin using the S P 500 Index, the Volatility Index, and gold. However, the debate is now sufficiently mature to discuss the reasons determining its correlation with other assets. We study the correlations of Bitcoin and one benchmark, a stock market index-specifically, the Nasdaq 100 Index. Our focus is on the correlation between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq 100 as a proxy for the most representative technology stocks. We show that the correlation between the two has grown substantially since 2018, and has increased more since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2020 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
Considering the dynamics of the fast-changing and often unpredictable global environment, a formal, reliable, and comprehensive framework for analyzing a business' strategic posture may be useful. This paper examines an assessment tool, Igor Ansoff's seminal contributions to strategic diagnosis. That tool focuses primarily on identifying and enhancing a firm's strategic financial performance potential through analysis of an industrial sector environmental turbulence level relative to the firm's aggressiveness and capability responsiveness. A small business survey conducted in the Henan Province of China after the COVID-19 lock-down analyzes the future strategic financial performance potential of the province's small businesses as well as the interactions among the businesses' external environmental turbulence level, aggressiveness, and capability responsiveness. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2021.