ABSTRACT
BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic triggered serious challenges in the treatment of chronic diseases due to the lack of access to medical attention. Patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) must have adequate treatment compliance in order to reach and maintain remission or low activity of their diseases. Treatment suspension because of non-medical reasons might lead to disease activation and organ damage.ObjectivesIdentify the frequency of biologic treatment (bDMARD) suspension in patients with RD during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the associated factors for suspension.MethodsIn this study we included all patients registered in the Mexican Biologics Adverse Events Registry (BIOBADAMEX), that started bDMARD before March 2019 and suspended treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistic to analyze baseline characteristics and main treatment suspension causes. We used Chi[2] and Kruskal Wallis tests to analyze differences between groups.ResultsA total of 832 patients patients registered in BIOBADAMEX were included in this study, 143 (17%) suspended bDMARD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes of suspension were inefficacy in 54 (38%) patients, followed by other motives in 49 (34%) patients from which 7 (5%) was loss of medical coverage. Adverse events and loss of patients to follow up were the motive in 16 (11%) and 15 (11%) patients respectively.When we compared the group that suspended bDMARD with the non-suspenders (Table 1), we found statistical differences in patient gender, with 125 (87%) female patients that suspended bDMARD, with a median age of 52 (42-60) years, and a treatment duration of 3.8 years.ConclusionIn our study we found that 17% of patients with RD suspended bDMARD treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic and that non-medical motives such as lack of patients follow up and loss of medical coverage due to unemployment were important motives. These results are related to the effect of the pandemic on other chronic diseases.Table 1.Patients baseline characteristicsPatients that did not suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 689)Patients that suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 143)pFemale gender, n(%)549 (79.7)125 (87.4)0.02Age, median (IQR)55 (45 – 63)52 (42 – 60)0.04Body mass index, median (IQR)26.4 (23 – 30.4)27.23 (24.2 – 30.46)0.13Social security, n(%)589 (85.5)128 (89.5)0.2Diagnosis0.7- Rheumatoid arthritis444 (64.4)97 (67.8)- Juvenil idiopathic athritis29 (4.2)2 (1.4)- Ankyosing sponylitis93 (13.5)19 (13.3)- Psoriasic arthritis43 (6.2)6 (4.2)- Systemic lupus erithematosus32 (4.6)9 (6.3)- Others48 (6.9)10 (6.9)Disease duration, median (IQR)11 (7 – 19.5)12 (6 - 18)0.95Comorbidities, n(%)305 (44.3)73 (51)0.08Previos biologic, n(%)249 (36.1)60 (42)0.1Treatment at pandemic iniciation, n(%)0.8 - Etanercept a34 (4.9)5 (3.5)- Infliximab a24 (3.5)5 (3.5)- Adalimumab130 (18.9)22 (15.4)- Rituximab a61 (8.9)25 (17.5)- Abatacept76 (11)20 (14)- Tocilizumab82 (11.9)18 (12.6)- Certolizumab92 (13.4)28 (19.6)- Rituximab b7 (1)0- Golimumab36 (5.2)5 (3.5)- Tofacitinib14 (2)1 (0.7)- Infliximab b4 (0.5)2 (1.4)- Etanercept b31 (4.5)6 (4.2)- Baricitinib12 (1.7)1 (0.7)- Belimumab5 (0.7)1 (0.7)- Secukinumb8 (1.2)3 (2.1)Steroids use, n(%):254 (36.9)57 (39.9)0.2Steroids dose (mg), median (IQR)6 (5 – 10)6 (5 – 10)0.47DMARD use, n(%):538 (78.1)118 (82.5)0.1Treatment duration, median (IQR)5.06 (4.04 – 5.78)3.82 (3.35 – 4.95)0.001Suspension motive, n(%)NA- Inefficacy-54 (37.8)- Adverse event-16 (11.2)- Pregnancy-2 (1.4)- Loss of patient-15 (10.5)- Remission-7 (4.9)- Others-49 (34.2)Adverse events, n(%):102 (14.8)24 (16.8)0.3- Severe, n(%)13 (1.9)5 (3.5)0.4a original, b biosimilarREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVijaya Rivera Teran: None declared, Daniel Xavier Xibille Friedmann: None declared, David Vega-Morales: None declared, Sandra Sicsik: None declared, Angel Castillo Ortiz: None declared, Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos: None declared, Dafhne Miranda: None declared, Iris Jazmin Colunga-Pedraza: None declared, Julio Cesar Casasola: None declared, Omar Elo Muñoz-Monroy: None declared, Sandra Carrilo: None declared, Angélica Peña: None declared, Sergio Duran Barragan: None declared, Luis Francisco Valdés Corona: None declared, Estefanía Torres Valdéz: None declared, Azucena Ramos: None declared, Aleni Paz: None declared, ERICK ADRIAN ZAMORA-TEHOZOL: None declared, Deshire Alpizar-Rodriguez Employee of: Scientific Advisor in GSK México.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundDeucravacitinib is a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor approved in multiple countries for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis. Deucravacitinib suppresses signaling of cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of immune-mediated diseases including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Deucravacitinib was efficacious compared with placebo in phase 2 trials in psoriatic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.[1,2] In two phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (POETYK PSO-1 [NCT03624127], PSO-2 [NCT03611751]), deucravacitinib showed superior efficacy versus placebo and apremilast.[3,4] Upon completion of either psoriasis trial, patients could enroll in the POETYK long-term extension (LTE) trial (NCT04036435).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence rate and severity of adverse events (AEs) due to COVID-19 with deucravacitinib treatment in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 trials and open-label POETYK LTE trial.MethodsIn PSO-1 (N=666) and PSO-2 (N=1020), adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. At Week 16, placebo patients in both trials switched to deucravacitinib. Based on their Week 24 PASI response, apremilast patients continued with apremilast or switched to placebo or deucravacitinib. In PSO-1, patients randomized to deucravacitinib continued treatment for 52 weeks;in PSO-2, some patients randomized to deucravacitinib had a randomized treatment withdrawal period. At Week 52, patients could enroll in the open-label LTE and receive deucravacitinib. Incidence rates and severity of COVID-19–related AEs in the POETYK trials (n=1364;2076.7 person-years [PY] of follow-up) were compared with the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trial placebo group (n=19,544;3096.1 PY of follow-up). This reference population was selected due to the study design and timing of the trial, which occurred when variants were in circulation.ResultsAs of October 1, 2021, 1519 patients received ≥1 dose of deucravacitinib over a 2-year follow-up period;1364 patients met criteria for this analysis, with deucravacitinib exposure since the pandemic onset (estimated to be January 1, 2020). In total, 153 deucravacitinib patients reported a COVID-19–related AE, for an overall exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of 7.4/100 PY (95% CI, 6.2–8.6). Serious COVID-19–related AEs occurred in 43 patients (EAIR, 2.1/100 PY;95% CI, 1.5–2.8), including 30 with COVID-19 and 13 with COVID-19 pneumonia;this rate was within the margins of those for moderate to severe COVID-19 reported in the reference population (EAIR, 16.5/100 PY;95% CI, 15.0–17.9). Deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in 6 patients (EAIR, 0.3/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.6), with the COVID-19–related mortality rate being consistent with the reference population (EAIR, 0.23/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.5). Treatment was discontinued due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 pneumonia in 7 patients, including the 6 patients who died due to COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 was among the most frequently reported AEs during the 2-year period of the pooled PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE trials due to the temporal overlap of the pandemic with the trials. However, COVID-19 infection and death rates did not differ from the reference population;most infections were not serious and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Based on this analysis, deucravacitinib did not appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 nor its progression to severe outcomes.References[1]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:815-822.[2]Morand E, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;Nov 11 (Epub ahead of print).[3]Armstrong A, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02256-3.[4]Strober B, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02643-3.AcknowledgementsThese clinical trials were sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of InterestsDiamant Thaçi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boeh inger Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Kenneth B Gordon Consultant of: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Melinda Gooderham Speakers bureau: Glenmark, Actelion, AbbVie, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Consultant of: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Andrew Alexis Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, L'Oreal, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Sol-Gel, UCB, Valeant, VisualDx, and Vyne, Grant/research support from: Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Menlo, Novartis, and Valeant (Bausch Health), Varsha Lalchandani Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Julie Scotto Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Matthew J Colombo Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Tamara Lezhava Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Arrive Technologies, Avotres, BiomX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brickell Biotech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas' (Corrona) Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Evommune, Forte Biosciences, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hexima, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB.
ABSTRACT
We examined early adolescent predictors of later distress and adaptive coping in early adulthood, using data from a prospective longitudinal cohort study (n = 786). In early adolescence (age 13), we assessed indicators of mental health (internalizing symptoms), stressor exposure (cumulative stressful life events), and family socialization (supportive parent–child interactions). In early adulthood (age 22), during the first COVID-19-related Swiss national lockdown, we assessed cumulative pandemic-related stressors, distress (poor well-being, hopelessness, and perceived disruptions to life) and adaptive coping. Early adolescent internalizing symptoms predicted lower well-being, more hopelessness, and perceived lifestyle disruptions in early adulthood, during the pandemic. Cumulative stressful life events during early adolescence moderated the association between cumulative pandemic-related stressors and perceived lifestyle disruptions. Supportive parent–child interactions fostered subsequent engagement in adaptive coping, which, in turn, predicted less hopelessness and better well-being. Findings reveal that early adolescent development is linked with distress and adaptive coping in later periods. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Early Adolescence is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSjögren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease affecting exocrine glands, primarily the salivary and tear glands, with potentially severe manifestations in multiple organs. No approved disease-modifying therapies exist. Dazodalibep (DAZ) is a biologic antagonist of CD40L.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity (NCT04129164).MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity, as defined by a EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score ≥ 5. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous DAZ 1500 mg or placebo (PBO) Q2W x 3 doses, then Q4W x 4 additional doses. Starting on Day 169, subjects initially randomized to DAZ received PBO Q4W x 5 doses and subjects randomized to PBO received DAZ Q4W x 5 doses and were then followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from Baseline in ESSDAI at Day 169. Safety assessments included the incidence of adverse (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs of special interest (AESIs).ResultsThe 74 randomized subjects all received ≥1 dose of study medication (DAZ, N=36;PBO, N=38). The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the two groups. The change from Baseline to Day 169 in ESSDAI score (LS mean ± SE), was -6.3 ± 0.6 in DAZ-treated subjects compared to -4.1 ± 0.6 in the PBO group, a difference of -2.2 (p = 0.0167). Compared to the PBO group, the DAZ group showed positive trends in the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index score, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score at Day 169. A post-hoc responder analysis of subjects achieving high levels (5 and 6 points) of improvement on ESSDAI favored DAZ (61.1% and 60.0%) over PBO (35.1% and 34.3%).The reported AEs were generally mild through Day 169 and similar in frequency between treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs occurring in ≥5% of DAZ-treated subjects and >PBO were COVID-19, diarrhea, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, contusion, device allergy, fatigue, hypertension, and oropharyngeal pain. Two SAEs were reported in a single DAZ-treated subject: this subject was a 59-year-old female who experienced a grade 3 SAE of COVID-19 infection and later died of unknown cause 46 days after last administration of DAZ (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). There was a single AESI of herpes zoster in a DAZ-treated subject.ConclusionDAZ is a potential new therapy for the treatment of systemic disease activity in patients with SS. SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease receiving DAZ experienced a statistically significant reduction in disease activity relative to PBO as measured by the improvement in ESSDAI score. Except for a case of severe COVID-19 infection, DAZ therapy in SS subjects appeared to be well tolerated. Larger controlled trials of DAZ therapy for SS are warranted to further explore its safety profile and confirm its clinical efficacy.Table 1.Efficacy and Safety DataPBO N=38DAZ 1500 mg N=36EfficacyΔESSDAI, LS mean (SE) †-4.1 (0.6)-6.3 (0.6)*ΔESSPRI, LS mean (SE) †-1.12 (0.29)-1.80 (0.31)ΔFACIT-Fatigue, LS mean (SE) †5.8 (1.6)8.1 (1.6)AE Summary, n (%)≥1 AE23 (60.5)28 (77.8)≥1 related AE8 (21)10 (27.8)≥1 SAE01 (2.8)≥1 related SAE00≥1 AE leading to discontinuation00≥1 AESI01 (2.8)≥1 Death01 (2.8)Efficacy endpoints as of Day 169;† Analyzed using MMRM;Comparisons vs PBO;*p<0.05;AE summaries based on AEs that occurred through Day 169;AE, adverse event;AESI, adverse event of special interest;ESSDAI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index;ESSPRI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index;FACIT-Fatigue, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue;PBO, placebo;SAE, serious adverse eventFigure 1.AcknowledgementsFunded by Horizon herapeutics. Medical writing support provided by B Lujan, PhD, an employee of Horizon Therapeutics.Disclosure of InterestsE. William St. Clair Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Resolve Therapeutics, Sonoma Biotherapeutics. Royalties: UpToDate, Liangwei Wang Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Ilias Alevizos Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, William Rees Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Alan Baer Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Wan Fai Ng Consultant of: Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, BMS, Sanofi, MedImmune, Janssen and UCB, Ghaith Noaiseh Consultant of: Novartis, Chiara Baldini Consultant of: GSK, and Sanofi.
ABSTRACT
PurposeBetween 2020 and spring 2022, health safety was the new pressing concern among the risks at major events. It seemed that it – respectively hygiene as part of infection control – was as important as event safety if an event in Germany was to be approved. Problems aroused in terms of an equal implementation in practice. This article therefore addresses how safety and hygiene aspects interacted during event planning and implementation phases.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on qualitative data from a German research project. They use results from eleven semi-structured expert interviews and four field observations at major events. One guiding assumption in the content analysis is that there are major interrelations between event and health safety concepts, which become visible during planning and the implementation of event-related technical, organisational and personal measures.FindingsThe empirical data shows that hygiene is not perceived as an integral part of event safety, but rather as a disconnected pillar beside the "classical” event safety. This is reflected in an imbalanced attention as well as in separate, disintegrated concepts. This disconnectedness leaves room for unwanted interplays between event and health safety as well as potential legitimacy facades.Originality/valueMost studies to date focus on the effectiveness of hygiene concepts and impacts of COVID-19 on the event sector in general without taking a closer look at interactions between event safety and health safety.
ABSTRACT
PurposeThis paper aims to predict the post-pandemic intention of Indian consumers to participate in tourism and hospitality T&H events by incorporating the perception of Covid-19 (PCOV) into the theory of planned behavior (TPB). It also examines the relationship among attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral intention and PCOV.Design/methodology/approachThis research employed a quantitative research technique, with data collected using an online questionnaire-based survey from August 23 to October 29, 2021. The sampling approach is convenient, and the sample of this study is comprised of individuals who follow events pages on social networking sites.FindingsThe findings of SEM revealed that the proposed model has better explanatory and predictive power. The path analysis showed that all the variables of the TPB are significantly and positively associated with the post-pandemic intention to participate in the T&H events. However, the PCOV is negatively associated with the post-pandemic intention.Research limitations/implicationsThe results of this study give an idea about the post-pandemic intention of Indian consumers to participate in T&H events. The results of this study revealed important practical implications for event management organizations, travel agencies that deal in events, the T&H industry, tourism planners and other stakeholders, as these findings may be used to develop effective marketing strategies.Originality/valueThere has been a lot of research on TPB in the context of coronavirus, but to the best of the authors' knowledge, there is a gap in the literature regarding the intention to participate in T&H events. Hence, this research fills that gap.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19, an infectious disease, has become a leading cause of death in many people. The rapid emergence of the pandemic prompted the development of a vaccine to mitigate the disease's harmful consequences. Vaccination is the only effective way to prevent infection from spreading and build immunity to the virus. However, developing adverse effects has become a major problem for vaccine reluctance. Accordingly, the interest has been shifted towards identifying the adverse effects developed following immunization. The current study objective is to assess and compare the intensity of adverse effects following 1st and 2nd dose of COVID-19 vaccination and the medication administered to relieve the symptoms associated with vaccination. A cross-sectional study was performed in a community over six months. A total of 836 participants were involved in the study. All the data regarding the vaccination were collected through a specially designed questionnaire form and analyzed in all the participants within the study group. According to the study, at least 1 AEFI was developed in about 90% of the study population. The most common systemic and local effect developed in the study population was fever (59.42%) and pain at the injection site (69.82%), respectively. With both vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152), the incidence and severity of AEFIs were lower after the second dose than after the first dose, and most of the symptoms associated with vaccination were alleviated by taking home remedies and symptomatic treatment. The adverse effects reported after receiving the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152 vaccines are typical of most vaccines, and the majority of them were tolerated, and most subsided in less than 24 hours.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundTofacitinib a small molecule JAK- inhibitors has been approved for use in psoriatic arthritis (PSA) since 2017 while it has shown to be effective in the clinical trials real life data is sparse.With increase in use there has been growing concern about the safety profiles and adverse events which makes it all the more important to have real life data.ObjectivesTo review patient records who were treated with tofacitinib for psoriatic arthritis and to assess the tolerance and continuation rate and also assess the occurrence of adverse events like infections, coronary artery disease.MethodsAll PSA patients who were prescribed tofacitinib from JAN-2021 to JUNE 2022 with minimum of 6 months followup were included for analysis. Demographics, weight recordings, lab parameters and occurence of adverse events were noted.ResultsThere were a total of 71 patients who were prescribed tofacitinib out of which 46 are continuing and 25 have stopped during this period. The mean age was 47.25 (10.9)yrs the mean disease duration was 4.182 (4.474)yrs The reason for stopping tofacitinib was better(52%) followed inefficacy(24%), and miscellaneous(24%)reasons..When analysing before and after tofacitninb one thing whihc was striking is the significant weight gain among patients with minimum of 3.52(3.06) kg weight gain and this weight gain was consistent even in stopped patients.in comparing the lab parameters before and after tofacitininb there was a significant redcution in CRP,ESR,PLATELET COUNT Table 1 and a minimal but insginificant rise in liver enzymes within the physiological range.When compared to before and after tofacitinib there was increased occurence of fatigue(18.3%), minor infections(11.2%), Gastrointerstinal adverse events (11.2%), alopecia (11.2%), Itching(10.4%), headache(9.8%), UTI(5.6%), cough (4.2%), transaminitis(2.8%), covid(1.7%), zoster(1.4%) and CAD(1.4%).ConclusionTofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis is well tolerated with significant reduction in the inflammatory markers and weight gain but serious adverse events in lesser percentage eventhough it leads to significant weight gain.Table 1.PARAMTERSBeforeAfterP valueWeight70.15 (14.19)72.31 (14.24)0.000249ESR45.29 (28.26)35.23 (28.33)0.037CRP21.56 (16.38)10.72 (11.98)<.0001PLATELET COUNT332.92 (88.77)307.09 (88.18)0.0046SGOT30.33 (9.99)35.69 (19.92)0.125SGPT22.57 (12.96)27.98 (20.17)0.116Reference[1]Ly K, Beck KM, Smith MP, Orbai A-M, Liao W. Tofacitinib in the management of active psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives. Psoriasis (Auckl) [Internet]. 2019;9:97–107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/PTT.S161453Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Climate change is not just about modeling and understanding hazards or weather. Societal resilience has to consider wider systemic dynamics and to explore how risks interact for going beyond the existing approaches to adaptation. It is a matter of understanding the root causes of problems, promoting strategic efforts that could be efficient and feasible. This chapter offers a reference point for scholars and practitioners who are approaching the management of complex systems and are willing to explore the implications for business as usual. At the same time, it builds evidence to support experienced readers in going beyond silo thinking and conventional wisdom. Examples and theories are used together to propose that climate-resilient societies need shifting toward the understanding of common points of failures between different threats and promoting effective multi-sectoral partnerships. The sections are developed to progress in complementary steps. Are there any lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that could be applied for promoting climate-resilient societies? What is cascading risk and how does it relate to concurrent and compounding events? What can be learned from the field? Are there differences between remote and urban areas? The discussion proposes a reflection on how limitations in timescales, budgets, and operational capacity could affect resilience, offering an approach to move beyond the status quo and promoting societal resilience. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.
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
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has helped businesses in hospitality and tourism industry to reduce costs, improve customer services as well as customer experience, enhance the efficiency of business operational and increase customer retention. The impact of Internet on tourism has been widely discussed and analyzed in tourism research. However, specific study on tourism fairs, festivals and events are less touched. During post COVID-19 pandemic, Internet and marketing are the main element of ICT that has powerful impact on tourism fairs, festivals and events. Tourism fairs, festivals and events make people united and social media become a perfect channel for participant to get their first experiences and share it to the Internet users. In addition, mobile communication technology such as mobile tablets and smartphones become significant where ease for individual to keep updated about changes on festivals and events or offer deals from businesses. Thus, essential for business in tourism fairs, festivals, and events to utilize the element of IT effectively for business continuity. In nutshell, the application of ICT in tourism fairs, festivals and events will be helping to speed up businesses' operation and make festivals and events more enjoyable and efficient. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022.
ABSTRACT
Historically, fan attendance at sporting events has always been considered an advantage for the home team. The level of fan attendance at soccer matches was evaluated as a decisive effect to modify the performance of the home teams in the most important soccer leagues around the world. We exploit the effects of the absence of spectators driven by COVID-19 pandemic mitigation policies. We find that the advantage of the home field, measured by the proportion of wins and also by the numbers of goals and points scored, is remarkable in many leagues. We performed comparative hypothesis tests with eight of the world's top soccer leagues, confirming a decrease in the probability of a home win, greatly affecting the matches´ outcomes. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Soccer & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
Timeline summarization (TLS) is a challenging research task that requires researchers to distill extensive and intricate temporal data into a concise and easily comprehensible representation. This paper proposes a novel approach to timeline summarization using Meaning Representations (AMRs), a graphical representation of the text where the nodes are semantic concepts and the edges denote relationships between concepts. With AMR, sentences with different wordings, but similar semantics, have similar representations. To make use of this feature for timeline summarization, a two-step sentence selection method that leverages features extracted from both AMRs and the text is proposed. First, AMRs are generated for each sentence. Sentences are then filtered out by removing those with no named-entities and keeping the ones with the highest number of named-entities. In the next step, sentences to appear in the timeline are selected based on two scores: Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) of AMR nodes combined with the score obtained by applying a keyword extraction method to the text. Our experimental results on the TLS-Covid19 test collection demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach. © 2023 ACM.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA), although their safety profile continues to be analysed due to the possible increase in adverse events (AEs) in relation to anti-TNFs (mild and severe infections, haematological alterations, thromboembolism, increase in neoplasms).ObjectivesTo evaluate in real clinical practice the AEs of JAKinibs in a cohort of patients with RA and SpA. In addition, adherence and reasons for discontinuation (1st or 2nd failure, AE) are analysed.MethodsObservational study of 116 patients diagnosed with RA or SpA who received treatment with JAKinibis (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib) after failure of treatment with different classical synthetic (FAMEsc) or biological (FAMEb) disease-modifying drugs. The following data were analysed: demographic characteristics of the patients, years of disease progression, 1st or 2nd failures and AE.ResultsMean age was 52 years, with Baricitinib being older (60 years -SD 13.6), higher prevalence of females in all groups, and a disease progression time of about 10 years. Mean number of FAMEsc was 1.6 and mean number of FAMEb was 2,3 to Tofacitinib(Tofa), 2,76 to Baricitinib(Bari) and 4,4 to Upadacitinib(Upa). 71 (63%) patients had active corticosteroid therapy. The median treatment time with Tofa was 8.8 months, Bari 9.5 and Upa 2.4 months.Most frequent AEs with Tofa were urinary tract infections(UTI) (11.9%, 7 cases) and headaches (8.47%, 5 cases). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster (5.1%), one of which was recurrent, and 2 cases respectively of tachycardia and gastrointestinal intolerance (3.4%). With Baricitnib, 2(5%) cases of UTI and 2(5%) of influenza A were reported. Most frequent AEs related to Upadacitinb are gastrointestinal intolerance, labialis and facial herpes, anterior uveitis and recurrent UTI, with 1 case for each adverse event. There were 4 success with Baricitinib treatment: 2 due to severe COVID, 1 influenza A and 1 due to stroke. 17 patients had 1st failure to Tofa(28.81%), 8 to Bari20.0%) and 3 to Upa(18.75%);7(11.86%) and 2(5%) patients had 2nd failure to Tofa and Bari respectively, no with Upa.Mean CRP to Tofa-SD 18.9-was 17.19, 20-SD 22.7- to Bari and 24.2-SD 27.40- to Upa. Mean ESR-SD 15.3- was 25.4, -SD 26.4 and 44.3 -SD 32-, respectively. At 6 months, 36(62%) were continuing on Tofa, 22(56%) on Bari and 4(27%) on Upa. At 12 months, 27(46.6%) were still on Tofa and 12 on Bari(30.8%) and no patients were on upa.Table 1.TofaBariUpaMean age496047Male19%18%20%Female81%82%80%Time course of disease(years)81111Permanence 6 months62%56%27%Permanence 12 months46,6%31%0%Patients with corticotherapy62%64%60%Previous biological drugs2,3 SD 22,8 SD 2,34,4 SD 2,9Patients who discontinued the drug62%59%33%Mean CRP at the end of treatment172024Mean end-of-treatment ESR252644Repeated AEsUTI(7) Headache(5) Shingles(3) Nephritic colic(2) Gastrointestinal intolerance(2) Tachycardia(2)UTI(4) Headache(2)Serious AEsShingles (3)Varicella encephalopathy(1) Stroke(1) Shingles (1)1st failure28,8%20%18,7%2nd failure11,9%5%0%SuccessSARS-Cov2(2) Influenza(1) Stroke(1)Figure 1. Months stay pharmacoConclusionMost frequent adverse events with JAKinibs are mild infections, except gastrointestinal complaints with upadacitinib. Serious adverse events, including 3 deaths from viral infections, were observed, mostly in patients over 65 years. Most frequent cause of discontinuation was treatment failure. We believe that further observational studies are needed to stratify and profile the risk of infection with JAKinibs.References[1]Atzeni F, Popa CD, et al. Safety of JAK inhibitors: focus on cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2022 Mar;18(3):233-244. Doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2022.2039630 Epub 2022 Feb 17.PMID: 35129033[2]Alves C, Penedones A,et al. The Risk of Infections Associated With JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e407-e414 PMID:33902098Ackn wledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
There is a growing concern about Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in buildings as humans are spending longer in indoor environments, whether this is associated or not with climate change and vulnerability to extreme weather events. In the wake of the COVID pandemic, the need for indoor air quality control is likely to increase, the result of many adaptations in home environments to switch to remote work. In hot countries in the Global South, one of the alternatives is split A/C units with limited air renewal. While, odorless and colorless CO2, commonly generated by occupants through respiration, is among the relevant indoor air pollutants. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a low-cost, responsive air-renewal system in a climate chamber equipped with a standard split A/C unit. The results show the system's feasibility in curbing IAQ concerns and also highlight the risk of negative impacts on indoor thermal conditions and on energy consumption on using A/C. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the immediate adverse effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (COVAXIN) in a pregnant woman with that of a nonpregnant woman. Material(s) and Method(s): It is a prospective observational study done at Vanivilas Hospital, Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute (BMCRI) for 2 months. The sample size was 100 pregnant and 100 nonpregnant women. Telephonically, patients were followed-up, and details of the side/adverse effects were collected in a proforma after 2 and 14 days. Data collected from both groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Result(s): The majority of women were in the age group of <=25 years (64.0% and 36.0%, respectively) with a mean age of 25.01 +/- 3.71 years among the pregnant and 28.52 +/- 6.00 years among nonpregnant women. About 25.0% of pregnant women and 38.0% of nonpregnant women reported side effects. About 15.0% and 22.0% had taken treatment for side effects among pregnant women and nonpregnant women, respectively. Among the pregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (17) followed by fever (5), fatigue (4), and myalgia (03). Whereas among the nonpregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (28) followed by fever (6), myalgia (3), headache (2), and fatigue (1). Conclusion(s): Side effects reported following the administration of Covaxin in pregnant and nonpregnant women are fever, fatigue, injection site pain, myalgia, and headache. The proportion of side effects was not significantly different in the pregnant and nonpregnant women following Covaxin administration. Clinical significance: Covaxin is an inactivated killed vaccine against COVID-19 by Bharat Biotech. The vaccine has been recommended for pregnant women by the Government of India during corona pandemic. Studies are lacking regarding the difference in adverse events in pregnant versus nonpregnant women, after vaccine administration.Copyright © The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the behaviors of attendees of small social life cycle events during the COVID-19 pandemic, incorporating the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) into the study framework. Adopting individuals' risk perception aspects based on the affect and availability heuristics as antecedents of variables of TPB, this study found that affect and availability heuristics influenced individuals' attitudes and perceived behavioral control when attending small social life cycle events during the pandemic. Findings of the study also revealed that individuals' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and social norm influenced their behavioral intentions and, in turn, their behaviors. The group comparison analysis found the severity of the pandemic in the regions moderated attendees' behaviors partially. Theoretical and managerial implications were addressed, followed by limitations and future study suggestions. © Copyright 2023 Cognizant, LLC.
ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to explore the role of technology application in tourism events, festivals, and fairs in the The United Arab Emirates (UAE) during the post-pandemic period of COVID-19. The chapter specifically focuses on various technical Apps based on the latest technology that may affect tourism events, festivals, and fairs. Existing literature lacks the ubiquitous role of technology Apps in sustainable tourism development in collaboration with tourism festivals, events, and fairs. The study identifies how tourists are affected by technology application, revealing in particular an increased tourism development and how tourists are continually enthralled by and attracted to tourism festivals, events, and fairs due to the advancement of the latest technology application in tourism. In this chapter, the perspective of the UAE is brought into the discussion. The chapter reveals that technology application in tourism festivals, events, and fairs can ensure sustainable tourism development in the UAE, especially in the post-pandemic period of COVID-19. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022.