Efficacy and safety of a fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at greater risk of serious illness and death than the general population. To date, the efficacy and safety of the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in KTRs have not been systematically discussed. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included articles from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Med Online published before May 15, 2022. Studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients were selected. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 727 KTRs. The overall pooled seropositivity rate after the fourth COVID-19 vaccine was 60% (95% CI, 49%-71%, I2 = 87.83%, p > 0.01). The pooled proportion of KTRs seronegative after the third dose that transitioned to seropositivity after the fourth dose was 30% (95% CI, 15%-48%, I2 = 94.98%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was well tolerated in KTRs with no serious adverse effects. Some KTRs showed a reduced response even after receiving the fourth vaccine dose. Overall, the fourth vaccine dose effectively improved seropositivity in KTRs, as recommended by the World Health Organization for the general population.

Biopsy channel of the endoscope as a potential source of infectious droplets during GI endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: During endoscopy, droplets with the potential to transmit infectious diseases are known to emanate from a patient's mouth and anus, but they may also be expelled from the biopsy channel of the endoscope. The main goal of our study was to quantify droplets emerging from the biopsy channel during clinical endoscopy. METHODS: A novel light-scattering device was used to measure droplets emanating from the biopsy channel. An endoscopy model was created, and in vitro measurements were carried out during air insufflation, air and water suctioning, and the performance of biopsy sampling. Similar measurements were then made on patients undergoing endoscopy, with all measurements taking place over 2 days to minimize variation. RESULTS: During in vitro testing, no droplets were observed at the biopsy channel during air insufflation or air and water suctioning. In 3 of 5 cases, droplets were observed during biopsy sampling, mostly when the forceps were being removed from the endoscope. In the 22 patients undergoing routine endoscopy, no droplets were observed during air insufflation and water suctioning. Droplets were detected in 1 of 11 patients during air suctioning. In 9 of 18 patients undergoing biopsy sampling and 5 of 6 patients undergoing snare polypectomies, droplets were observed at the biopsy channel, mostly when instruments were being removed from the endoscope. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the biopsy channel may be a source of infectious droplets, especially during the removal of instruments from the biopsy channel. When compared with droplets reported from the mouth and anus, these droplets were larger in size and therefore potentially more infectious.

Chinese expert recommendations on management of hepatocellular carcinoma during COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the work status of clinicians in China and their management strategy alteration for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A nationwide online questionnaire survey was conducted in 42 class-A tertiary hospitals across China. Experienced clinicians of HCC-related specialties responded with their work status and management suggestions for HCC patients during the pandemic. RESULTS: 716 doctors responded effectively with a response rate of 60.1%, and 664 were included in the final analysis. Overall, 51.4% (341/664) of clinicians reported more than a 60% reduction of the regular workload and surgeons declared the highest proportion of workload reduction. 92.5% (614/664) of the respondents have been using online medical consultation to substitute for the "face-to-face" visits. Adaptive adjustment for the treatment strategy for HCC was made, including the recommendations of noninvasive and minimally invasive treatments such as transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for early and intermediate stage. Targeted therapy has been the mainstay for advanced stage and also as a bridge therapy for resectable HCC. DISCUSSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, online medical consultation is recommended to avoid social contact. Targeted therapy as a bridge therapy is recommended for resectable HCC considering the possibility of delayed surgery.

Consensus on Pre-examination and Triage in Clinic of Dermatology During Outbreak of COVID-19 From Chinese Experts.

The 2019 novel coronavirus infection has brought a great challenge in prevention and control of the national epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. During the fight against the epidemic of COVID-19, properly carrying out pre-examination and triage for patients with skin lesions and fever has been a practical problem encountered in hospitals for skin diseases as well as clinics of dermatology in general hospitals. Considering that certain skin diseases may have symptom of fever, and some of the carriers of 2019 novel coronavirus and patients with COVID-19 at their early stage may do not present any symptoms of COVID-19, to properly deal with the visitors to clinics of dermatology, the Chinese Society of Dermatology organized experts to formulate the principles and procedures for pre-examination and triage of visitors to clinics of dermatology during the epidemic of COVID-19.

Analysis of viral load in different specimen types and serum antibody levels of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a global pandemic and the death toll is increasing. However, there is no definitive information regarding the type of clinical specimens that is the best for SARS-CoV-2 detection, the antibody levels in patients with different duration of disease, and the relationship between antibody level and viral load. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs, anal swabs, saliva, blood, and urine specimens were collected from patients with a course of disease ranging from 7 to 69 days. Viral load in different specimen types was measured using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Meanwhile, anti-nucleocapsid protein (anti-N) IgM and IgG antibodies and anti-spike protein receptor-binding domain (anti-S-RBD) IgG antibody in all serum samples were tested using ELISA. RESULTS: The positive detection rate in nasopharyngeal swab was the highest (54.05%), followed by anal swab (24.32%), and the positive detection rate in saliva, blood, and urine was 16.22%, 10.81%, and 5.41%, respectively. However, some patients with negative nasopharyngeal swabs had other specimens tested positive. There was no significant correlation between antibody level and days after symptoms onset or viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Other specimens could be positive in patients with negative nasopharyngeal swabs, suggesting that for patients in the recovery period, specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs should also be tested to avoid false negative results, and anal swabs are recommended. The antibody level had no correlation with days after symptoms onset or the viral load of nasopharyngeal swabs, suggesting that the antibody level may also be affected by other factors.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.59]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.95]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.